On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Laszlo Papp <lpapp@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:58:17 +0000, Lee Jones wrote: >>> > The MFD driver has now been added, so this driver is now being adopted to be a >>> > subdevice driver on top of it. This means, the i2c driver usage is being >>> > converted to platform driver usage all around. >>> > >>> > Signed-off-by: Laszlo Papp <lpapp@xxxxxxx> >>> > --- >>> > This patch has been compile tested only and will be tested with real hardware, >>> > but early reviews to catch any trivial issues would be welcome. >>> > drivers/hwmon/Kconfig | 2 +- >>> > drivers/hwmon/max6650.c | 155 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------ >>> > 2 files changed, 79 insertions(+), 78 deletions(-) >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>> > /* >>> > * Insmod parameters >>> > @@ -105,24 +108,23 @@ module_param(clock, int, S_IRUGO); >>> > >>> > #define DIV_FROM_REG(reg) (1 << (reg & 7)) >>> > >>> > -static int max6650_probe(struct i2c_client *client, >>> > - const struct i2c_device_id *id); >>> > -static int max6650_init_client(struct i2c_client *client); >>> > -static int max6650_remove(struct i2c_client *client); >>> > +static int max6650_probe(struct platform_device *pdev); >>> > +static int max6650_init_client(struct platform_device *pdev); >>> > +static int max6650_remove(struct platform_device *pdev); >>> > static struct max6650_data *max6650_update_device(struct device *dev); >>> >>> It would be good to remove these forward declarations in the future. >>> >>> If no one volunteers I'll happily do it. >> >> Guenter just did: >> >> http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/2014-February/041224.html >> >> Any change to the max6650 driver should go on top of his patch series >> to avoid conflicts: >> >> http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/2014-February/041223.html > > As far as I can see, that patch set was not even tested, so how can it > go in? I was told that any patch should be _runtime_ tested, too. > Fwiw, I do not have time to test those personally, he would need to > find someone else if that requirement really holds true. > > I would not really like to fix bugs appearing in that code to get my > features in. Also, since my change has been around for 2-3 months now, I would really prefer not to be forced to rewrite it again from scratch. Surely, you can wait with those, more or less, cosmetic non-runtime tested changes? This would impose me a lot of additional work again, and I personally do not see the benefit of it. In my book at least, feature is over internal polishing. _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
