On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 11:27 AM Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 04, 2022 at 06:15:59PM +0200, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > I'm not keen to push unrelated work onto someone doing good stuff > > on a driver, but in this particular case it does seem reasonable to > > tidy all this up given you are moving the code anyway. > > Well, even the moving of the code is unrelated to the original goal of > adding triggered buffered support and isn't necessary for that. The > moving of the code was only to eliminate the use of the "device_index", > which was already used in the existing code. > > I'm of course happy to fix problems with the code I'm actually adding, > but it seems to me that it would really be simpler for everyone if the > trivial comments (especially the purely cosmetic ones) on the existing, > unrelated code would be fixed by the people with the opinions about how > the existing code should look like. That's what Jonathan basically says, but with one remark that some of the fixes are affecting the code one is going to add. In any case, you may look at the "people with the opinions about how the existing code should look like" at different angle, i.e. that those people may be way overloaded while doing _a lot_ (and I mean it) of the stuff, so from their perspective it's easier if somebody who is already working on the driver can add a few trivial things which takes from her/him a couple of hours to accomplish. In the collaboration we get the product (Linux kernel) better! -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
