On 17/07/17 10:13, James Hughes wrote: > As someone who is interested in any bug fixes to this driver (Device > is used on Raspberry Pi3/0W and we have a number of issues reported > which we are actively investigating), it would be very useful to more > clearly split out any actual fixes vs simply tidying up (Yes, I agree > the driver is mostly incomprehensible). I don't think there are any actual *fixes* in this RFC series. Its all cleanup. The only issue I highlighted in my covering email - the patch titled "HACK" was the only issue I uncovered thus far in that code. I dont know the correct solution, although I can *guess* it, which is not good enough, IMO. If no-one has the docs for this chip, thats a bad state of affairs. Is there anything circulating? > Perhaps asking the > list/maintainers for comments on any located issues/bugs fixes would > be a useful starting point, Thats *literally* what RFC means, is it not? > along with ensuring the description gives a good explanation of what > the suspect issue is. Yes, absolutely - for a fully signed off series, or a particularly complex bit of code, sure. I think each of these patches is easily reviewable. None of them are complex, just huge. As yet, I have *zero* idea that the maintainers are interested in taking the driver in the direction I'm going. It looks a LOT like a typical corporate code-dump, and unless I'm convinced that sending carefully polished patches is worth it, I don't see why I should put the effort in. Trust goes both ways in this process. Give me a sign that I should carry on with this work. If its got no hope of ever going upstream, all I'm doing is wasting time. -Ian
