On 7/27/20 11:17 PM, Vaibhav Gupta wrote: > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 02:30:03PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 7/27/20 12:11 PM, Vaibhav Gupta wrote: >>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 11:59:05AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>> On 7/27/20 11:51 AM, Vaibhav Gupta wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 11:42:51AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>>>> On 7/27/20 11:40 AM, Vaibhav Gupta wrote: >>> Yes, I agree. Actually with previous drivers, I was able to get help >>> from maintainers and/or supporters for the hardware testing. Is that >>> possible for this patch? >> >> It might be, you'll have to ask people to help you, very rarely do people >> just test patches unsolicited unless they have some sort of interest in the >> feature. >> >> This is all part of what it takes to get code upstream. Writing the code >> is just a small part of it, the bigger part is usually getting it tested >> and providing some assurance that you are willing to fix issues when/if >> they come up. >> >> You might want to consider splitting up the patchset a bit - you could >> have one patch for the generic bits, then one for each chipset. That >> would allow you to at least get some of the work upstream, once tested. >> > I think I can break this patch into one commit per driver. The reason that > all updates got into one single patch is that I made > ata_pci_device_suspend/resume() static and exported just the > ata_pci_device_pm_ops variable. Thus, all the driver using .suspend/.resume() > had to be updated in a single patch. > > First I will make changes in drivers/ata/libata-core.c, but won't make any > function static. Thus, each driver can be updated in independent commits > without breaking anything. And then in the last commit, I can hide the > unnecessary .suspend()/.resume() callbacks. This will create patch-series of 55 > or 56 patches. > > Will this approach work? That should work, but more importantly, ensure you get some folks signed up for testing this functionality. -- Jens Axboe
