Hi Mark, Thanks for the review(s)! On Fri, 2021-04-02 at 18:18 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 12:23:02PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > > > + /* > > + * Existing logic does not warn if over_current_protection is > > given as > > + * a constraint but driver does not support that. I think we > > should > > + * warn about this type of issues as it is possible someone > > changes > > The "existing logic" bit here is for a changelog, not the code - as > soon > as the patch is applied the comment becomes inaccurate. This also > seems > like a separate patch. I don't think this patch changed the logic but kept it as it is now. Eg, for the existing over_current_protection property we still silently ignore case where property is given but driver does not support setting it. For me this sounds like fragile approach and I did handle the new properties (like detection) in a different way. Thus the comment should stay valid - and thus I didn't think this warrants a new patch. If you think we should change the logic, then we should definitely do that in separate patch. That allows revert if existing setups break everywhere. How would you like this to be? I can change the logic if you see it's worth the risk of breaking existing setups. Best Regards Matti Vaittinen
