On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 12:22:04 +0000 , Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 01:48:06PM +0200, Pantelis Antoniou wrote: > > > On Oct 29, 2014, at 12:14 , Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > This feels like there is an abstraction problem somewhere, whatever code > > > is supposed to use this is going to need to be taught about each > > > individual bus which is going to be tedious, I would expect that we'd > > > have something like the bus being able to provide a callback which will > > > get invoked whenever a new node appears on the parent node for the bus. > > > Thereâ??s a whole patchset that does exactly this. > > Look at "OF: spi: Add OF notifier handlerâ?? and youâ??ll where this is used. > > I deleted that unread I'm afraid; one of the reasons that you should use > subject lines matching the styles for the subsystems is that it's one of > the things people use to filter out things that actually need attention, > if things are busy things that at first glance don't look terribly > relevant (like changes to the OF core in this case) are likely to get > looked at less urgently or just skipped. > > A quick glance suggests that this is adding code inside the SPI core so > it's still not explaining why anything is being exported, can you > clarify please? I have the same question. This doesn't look like it should be exporting symbols. Also, the way the patch is written causes a lot of code changes to get interleaved in the diff. It would be better to split into two patches; one that creates the new of_register_spi_device(), and a separate patch to add the other new functions. It would be certainly easier to review that way. > > > > SubmittingPatches says. Please also try to keep your CC list sane, > > > CCing random people just means that you're increasing the volume of mail > > > they have to process. I'm surprised kernel.org accepts so many CCs. > > > > I have to say I don't recall ever seeing v1... > > > All of them are in the CC list for a reason. > > This is a single, standalone SPI patch - you didn't send it as part of a > series (which is the only reason I read it). Yes, this is part of the OF overlay series. It should have at least been marked as [PATCH 7/8] and that it replaced the previous, buggy, patch 7. g. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
