On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 10:13:24AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 02:10:45PM +0530, Naresh Solanki wrote: > > > > > > On 17-11-2022 01:15 pm, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 10:36:15PM +0100, Naresh Solanki wrote: > > > > max6639_platform_data is not used by any in-kernel driver and does not > > > > address the MAX6639 fans separately. > > > > Move to device tree configuration with explicit properties to configure > > > > each fan. > > > > > > > > Non-DT platform can still use this module with its default > > > > configuration. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Marcello Sylvester Bauer <sylv@xxxxxxx> > > > > Signed-off-by: Naresh Solanki <Naresh.Solanki@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > What changed here since v5? Please either add a changelog below the > > > tripple-dash for a new revision, or make sure that all relevant people > > > get the cover letter. > > > > > > It seems you didn't address my comments for v5 :-\ > > Not sure what I missed but did following changes: > > Removed unused header max6639.h > > Used dev_err_probe instead, > > Removed of_pwm_n_cells, > > if condition for freq_table > > removed pwm_get_state & instead use pwm->state > > division/multiplication optimizations, > > indentation of freq_table, > > In the cover letter you just wrote: > > | Changes in V6: > | - Remove unused header file > | - minor cleanup > > which is too short in my eyes. If you wrote instead: > > Address review feedback by Uwe Kleine-König in patch #3, patches #1 and > #2 unchanged. > > This would be much more helpful as people that were already happy with > v5 wouldn't need to look at the first two patches and I would know that > you addressed my feedback and would have looked in more detail. > > What I miss is the most critical part of my feedback, i.e.: > | My overall impression is that this patch mixes too much things. IMHO it > | should be split in (at least) > | > | - Add dt support > | - Drop platform support > | - Add PWM provider support > | - Make use of the PWM API > | > | maybe also add the 2nd PWM in a separate step. Those will definitely need to be separate patches. I am far from convinced that all fan controllers in the hwmon subsystem should implement pwm providers just to match devicetree requirements. That adds zero value in 99% of all use cases. Actually, I don't know of any use cases where it would add value or even make sense. Guenter > > Best regards > Uwe > > -- > Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | > Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
