Hi Laurent, On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 11:51:37AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 11:38:18AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > Hi Sakari, > > > > Thank you for the patch. > > > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 12:36:48PM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > > From: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Replace the open coded registration of the cdev and dev with the > > > new device_add_cdev() helper. The helper replaces a common pattern by > > > taking the proper reference against the parent device and adding both > > > the cdev and the device. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Acked-by: Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > This reapplies a commit you've reverted in 02/29 in this series. I > > understand this is done to be able to apply the revert in 03/29 cleanly. > > Given that those three patches are consecutive, wouldn't it be better to > > squash 02/29, 03/29 and 04/29, with the commit message of 03/29 ? > > Otherwise, I would at least drop the Acked-by and Reviewed-by tags in > > the patches you reapply, as they've been reviewed in a different > > context. > > > > The same applies to patches 05/29, 06/29 and 07/29. > > And especially to those patches actually. 06/29 has a single line change > for the uvcvideo driver, the revert in 05/29 and re-revert in 07/29 seem > overkill. The revert can't be applied as-is otherwise but I'm fine merging them. > > It would also be nice to expand the commit messages of 03/29 and 06/29 > to explain why the revert are needed. I can add that. These are basically improvements in the code but depend on commit a087ce704b80. Conceptually, it'd get quite difficult as what's really needed here is to get back to an earlier state, this is not development over the said commit. I'll drop the acks. -- Regards, Sakari Ailus
