Re: [PATCH 0/4] spi: s3c64xx: add support for google,gs101-spi

[Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2/6/24 18:59, Sam Protsenko wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 2:52 AM Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Depends on the simple cleanup patches from:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-spi/20240205124513.447875-1-tudor.ambarus@xxxxxxxxxx/
>>
>> A slightly different version of the google,gs101-spi support was sent at:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-spi/20240125145007.748295-1-tudor.ambarus@xxxxxxxxxx/
>>
>> Let's add support for gs101-spi so that I have a testing base for the
>> driver rework patches that will follow.
>>
>> Tudor Ambarus (4):
>>   spi: s3c64xx: explicitly include <linux/types.h>
>>   spi: dt-bindings: samsung: add google,gs101-spi compatible
>>   spi: s3c64xx: add s3c64xx_iowrite{8,16}_32_rep accessors
>>   spi: s3c64xx: add support for google,gs101-spi
>>
> 
> Just a grumpy note: I wish this series (except for the [PATCH 1/4],
> which I'd argue doesn't belong here) was submitted before the rest of
> SPI cleanups and reworkings. Would've made reviewing much easier,
> because this series doesn't apply without SPI cleanup series that has
> to be applied prior to that. There are other benefits to that approach
> too, as was discussed earlier.
> 

I feel we're bike-shedding, it drains my energy. Your reasons were:
1/ easier review
2/ easier backporting of gs101 if that's ever wanted
3/ driver rework takes more review time and I risk not having gs101
integrated for next release

2/ is not true right now, I could cherry-pick the iowrite and gs101
patches on top of v6.7. With 1/ I don't agree as the gs101 patches are
the same with or without the simple cleanup.
3/ is my responsibility and I'm ok with it, I feel there's enough time
for all

What matters, as I specified in the cover letter, is to have the gs101
patches before the functional driver rework which will follow, so that I
can test each functional patch with gs101.

I give up however, I'll do as you want. Will respin all.