On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 3:03 PM Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 19:38:03 +0800 > "Ramuthevar, Vadivel MuruganX" > <vadivel.muruganx.ramuthevar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 16/4/2020 7:17 pm, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > > On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 18:40:53 +0800 > > > "Ramuthevar, Vadivel MuruganX" > > > <vadivel.muruganx.ramuthevar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: ... > > There are different features involved and lines of code is more, if we > > add new driver patches over xway-nand driver > > How about retro-fitting the xway logic into your driver then? I mean, > adding a 100 lines of code to your driver to get rid of the 500+ lines > we have in xway_nand.c is still a win. > > > > > is completely looks ugly and it may disturb the existing functionality > > as well since we don't have platform to validate:'(. > > How ugly? Can you show us? Maybe we can come with a solution to make it > less ugly. > > As for the testing part, there are 4 scenarios: > > 1/ Your changes work perfectly fine on older platforms. Yay \o/! > 2/ You break the xway driver and existing users notice it before this > series gets merged. Now you found someone to validate your changes. > 3/ You break the xway driver and none of the existing users notice it > before the driver is merged, but they notice it afterwards. Too bad > this happened after we've merged the driver, but now you've found > someone to help you fix the problem :P. > 4/ You break things for old platforms but no one ever complains about > it, either because there's no users left or because they never > update their kernels. In any case, that's no longer your problem. > Someone will remove those old platforms one day and get rid of the > unneeded code in the NAND driver. > > What's more likely to happen is #3 or #4, and I think the NAND > maintainer would be fine with both. > > Note that the NAND subsystem is full of unmaintained legacy drivers, so > every time we see someone who could help us get rid or update one of > them we have to take this opportunity. Don't we rather insist to have a MAINTAINERS record for new code to avoid (or delay at least) the fate of the legacy drivers? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
