On 12/06/2017 01:11 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 12:40:45PM -0600, Andrew F. Davis wrote: > >> For some userspace feature sure, but this is kernel code, there is no >> guarantee for a sable API, in fact some would probably argue even >> further that there is a guarantee that stuff *will* change and this is a >> good thing as it kinda serves to punish for those you don't try to upstream. > >> So the helpfulness bar should be zero for changes that break out-of-tree >> stuff. > > There is no need to actively get in people's way or put up barriers to > people who do in future decide to upstream things, that doesn't help > anyone. > >> Even more so this patch isn't a zero gain, the cleaner, better looking, >> and easier to maintain code *is* the benefit in itself. Plus we gain the >> ability to set mic-gain voltage with ACPI, something you couldn't do >> before this patch. > > If this patch adds ACPI support then the patch description was clearly > not great (I don't think I read the patch itself since the description > just said that it was removing platform data without giving a reason, > that's the main review comment here). > I may not be clear that the ACPI part is new, but the message does say "and switch to using fwnode(DT/ACPI)" > If you want to use the device property stuff that's fine but there's no > need to remove platform data to do that, it's a smaller change. I find > it hard to see the platform data as a particularly big blight on the > code here, looking at the driver it's just going to remove the "pdata." > from a few variable accesses which isn't exactly transformational. > If keeping platform data is that important to you then I will split the patch into fwnode addition and pdata removal, you can just not take the pdata removal if you don't want it. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
