On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 04:57:15PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Mon, 27 May 2024, Conor Dooley wrote: > > > Would Russell's suggestion be acceptable for you ? > > > I mean, this one: > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZlDMNkdE2jmFgD8B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > > I could implement it, but before submitting it I would like to make > > > sure that it suits everyone. > > > > How's that going to work? MT8188_AP_GPU1 currently means 1, after your > > series it means 2. > > You're gonna need to pick a different naming for the new defines to > > avoid that. Additionally, why even delete the old ones? Just define > > new names with the same numbering and you don't need to worry about > > any compatibility issues. > > Isn't this making a mountain out of a molehill here? > > Seriously... none of this was present in a released kernel. The naming > can be adjusted "atomically" so compilation doesn't break, and > it is within maintainers' discretion to bypass the checkpatch warning in > such particular case. If that's the case, then great. Provide a fixes tag, and a better commit message than "Use thermal zone names that make more sense." that actually explains why it is okay to change the definitions. There'd've been neither mountain nor molehill were a sufficient commit message provided.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
