Hi Grant, > On Nov 21, 2014, at 17:33 , Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. >> >>> There’s a whole patchset that does exactly this. >>> Look at "OF: spi: Add OF notifier handler†and you’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. > The diff does make a mess of things; it’s not that complex of a patch. Your wish shall be granted. I’ll respin this over the weekend. >> >>>> 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. > Regards — Pantelis -- 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
