On 19 July 2016 at 12:52, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 10:31:54AM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: >> On 19 July 2016 at 01:02, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 12:35:41AM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: > >> >> SPI slave devices are not created when looking up driver for the slave >> >> fails. Create a device anyway so it can be used with spidev. > >> > Nothing has change since you last sent this patch which converts >> > of_modailias_node() into something which looks up a driver so the >> > patch description still fails to describe what the patch is doing. > >> I have split the other part of the patch. Regarding the commit message >> if you have suggestion for better wording please do share it. > > As covered in SubmittingPatches your commit message should describe what > the change does and what the intended effect is. If we were looking for > a device driver the code would be looking up a struct device_driver or > some other struct that contains one. > >> From my point of view the conceptual change described in the commit message >> is that whenever SPI slave node is encountered in devicetree you get either >> a device with active driver or a device with no driver whereas >> previously you either >> got a device with active driver or no device. So yes, it's about > > This is not the case, it is perfectly possible to have a device with no > driver bound to it otherwise it would not be possible to use loadable > modules for drivers. Ok, I missed this part. That makes the commit message indeed broken. Thanks Michal -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-spi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html