Hi Uwe,
On 17-11-2022 02:43 pm, 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.
Sure will keep it this way next time.
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.
Sure can do that.
Best regards
Uwe
Thanks,
Naresh
