On 21/01/25 00:58, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 12:47:18PM -0600, Mario Limonciello wrote:
>> On 1/20/2025 12:39, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> That does feel like quirks and new features rather than a completely
>>> distinct IP.
>> I see it as different forms of tech debt. Either you keep track of which
>> features the 62 vs 70 hardware supports by different drivers or add logic in
>> all the relevant functions().
>> The former increases LoC but reduces risk for mistake (IE avoid oops, I
>> forgot this is only supported on 70+ when adding new features).
> Until someone fixes a bug or does some subsystem wide cleanup which
> affects both copies of the code (perhaps that already happened since the
> code was copied!). There's a reason why this is the general kernel
> style.
>
>> Changing code that affects a lot of hardware means a lot more testing too.
>> Perhaps after Vijendar's series lands he can split up some of the purely
>> duplicated functions into helpers or callbacks and arrange all that testing?
> Well, it was getting a new spin anyway for the bits that didn't have the
> serial numbers filed off.
Will drop code duplication and come up with new patch series.
[Index of Archives]
[Pulseaudio]
[Linux Audio Users]
[ALSA Devel]
[Fedora Desktop]
[Fedora SELinux]
[Big List of Linux Books]
[Yosemite News]
[KDE Users]