From: "Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
To: "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@baylibre.com>
Cc: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: Switch back to struct platform_driver::remove()
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2024 11:23:56 +0300 (EEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8dd95728-484e-05a2-8b89-cf320296a8ab@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ge3xoxfiobwm5z572tdfc6rueikxlqwivngruhysdw5gtoif67@wagx5eid4bjy>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1990 bytes --]
On Fri, 18 Oct 2024, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello Ilpo,
>
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 12:52:44PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Oct 2024, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > After commit 0edb555a65d1 ("platform: Make platform_driver::remove()
> > > return void") .remove() is (again) the right callback to implement for
> > > platform drivers.
> > >
> > > Convert all platform drivers below drivers/platform/x86/ to use
> > > .remove(), with the eventual goal to drop struct
> > > platform_driver::remove_new(). As .remove() and .remove_new() have the
> > > same prototypes, conversion is done by just changing the structure
> > > member name in the driver initializer.
> > >
> > > While touching these files, make indention of the struct initializer
> > > consistent in several files.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > I've applied this patch now to review-ilpo branch, it applied conflict
> > free (unsurprisingly).
>
> Thanks.
>
> > Next time, please make PATCH x/y out of indentation or any other unrelated
> > change (I'm happy to take them too). I often validate large-scale
> > mechanical changes like this using tools because it's harder to fool
> > a pattern matcher than my eyes/mind. Any unrelated change creates noise
> > I have to deal with.
>
> I'll try to remember. But I already now ask for forgiveness because in
> my experience trivial whitespace only changes are not so well received
> by most maintainers and in the past I was asked to squash these cleanups
> into the functional patches. Do you know about git show -b (and diff
> -b)?
This was not a functional patch but large-scale mechanical change (ie., no
function changes).
I understand it might be hard to navigate various preferences of different
maintainers (and I took your patch anyway so I can hopefully remain
reasonable next time too :-)).
I know about -b, -B, and --word-diff (these are actually among "tools" I
use per usecase).
--
i.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-10-18 8:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-10-17 7:38 [PATCH] platform/x86: Switch back to struct platform_driver::remove() Uwe Kleine-König
2024-10-17 9:52 ` Ilpo Järvinen
2024-10-18 6:40 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2024-10-18 8:23 ` Ilpo Järvinen [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=8dd95728-484e-05a2-8b89-cf320296a8ab@linux.intel.com \
--to=ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hdegoede@redhat.com \
--cc=platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=u.kleine-koenig@baylibre.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox