X86 platform drivers
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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.

      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