On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 10:34:56PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > > single DT, you don't even use that property in your driver, and now > > > > that you realise you meant something else, you want the code that > > > > > > not Pali, Sebastian. > > > > > > > actually parse the *right* property and does the right thing, that all > > > > other DT agree (and depend on) to be reverted? > > > > > > We shouldn't revert, that I agree. But both properties should be parsed. > > > > No. If the property is wrong, and nobody parsed it, I do not see any reason to > > start now. > > Agreed. > > But that's not what I'm asking. See a changelog of > 3eea8b5d68c801fec788b411582b803463834752 and compare it with what it > actually does. > > It is buggy. If fuzz is specified but maximum is not, it overwites > maximum with zero. If maximum is not set, you'll have other issues anyway. But it really boils down on what the default behaviour should be. > Plus it introduces new failure "if (!test_bit(axis, dev->absbit))". It's not a new failure, it's testing against stupid code. If an axis is setup in the DT but not registered in the driver, something is wrong, most probably the DT. > Plus it fails to distinguish between "value not specified in the dt" > and "zero is specified in the dt". Again, default behaviour. > The 3eea8b5d68c801fec788b411582b803463834752 is just bad. You were very welcome to review this patch at the time and/or suggest a fix that pleases everyone. Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
