On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:03:48AM +0100, Aidan Thornton wrote: > On 24 Jun 2016 16:10, "Greg KH" <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 01:42:24PM +0800, WCH Tech Group wrote: > > > There are several reasons why we decided to revoke the old one after > > > communicating with the author of > > > ch341.c (Frank A Kingswood <frank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>), first of > all > > > we want the driver to support both ch341 and > > > ch340 chips, so we changed the driver name from "ch341.c" to "ch34x.c", > > > > No need to rename the driver to support multiple chips. Keep it the > > same name, and just add the new device support. That's how we do it for > > lots and lots of Linux drivers, the name doesn't really matter that > > much (look at the option.c driver for one such example.) > > > > > secondly the new driver and old one are coded > > > by different authors, in fact there's no connection between them. > > > > Ok, but the functionality is the same, so please just fix up the > > existing driver to add support for the new device, and fix any existing > > bugs. > > > > In Linux you don't get to just delete a working driver, you have to > > evolve code over time, sending patches that do one logical thing at a > > time so that people can properly review them. Your patch is not how > > this is supposed to happen at all. > > > > So please just break up your changes into small logical ones, and send a > > series of patches adding the new device support and fix up any known > > bugs. > > > > After that is all done, if you _really_ want to rename the driver, then > > we can discuss that, but first do the work to evolve the driver, as that > > is much more difficult. > > > > thanks, > > > > greg k-h > > It looks like someone by the name of Grigori Goronzy (CCed) had a patch series > or four attempting to do this that just never went anywhere like all the other > attempts. Might be worth someone talking to him or looking at his patches. Do you have a pointer to those patches on the mailing list? Why were they rejected? > Seriously, this is... I was considering trying to get parity support merged so > I don't have to keep patching it in, but it feels like a total waste of effort > at this point after seeing all the other attempts. No reason you can't take those patches and fix them up and resend them, right? thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
