On 02/13/2014 04:27 AM, Laszlo Papp wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
-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.
Right, I've had enough. I'm removing your patch from the MFD tree.
I've asked too many people to give you a second chance and asked you
privately to behave yourself and treat others with respect. So far I
haven't seen an ounce of self control or depomacy from you.
This is how it's going to work from now on:
- You submit a patch
- It gets reviewed <----\
- You fix up the review comments as requested -----/
- Non-compliance or arguments with the _experts_ results in:
`$INTEREST > /dev/null || \
grep "From: Laszio Papp" ~/.mail | xargs rm -rf`
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1645251
Step 2 did not happen. I did not get any review for my change. I
literally submitted that within a couple of hours after the request.
If you had tested your patch on real or simulated hardware,
you might have noticed a crash whenever you accessed any
of the attributes. So you did not test your patch.
Instead of trying to educate you how the conversion to the
new API works, I decided to help you out a bit and do
the conversion myself. I did some cleanup before, since
that made the actual feature patch easier for me to implement,
and I did some more cleanup afterwards just because I like
cleaning up code.
I had hoped that you might find the time to test the result,
but it appears that won't happen. I am gracious to Jean that
he took the time to review the changes and even test the
result in simulation, even though I know he is very busy.
So I consider the changes to be good enough to be made
available in my -staging tree, which I did by now.
I'll move them over to -next once I have the chance to test
on real hardware or after I get a Tested-by: from someone
with real hardware.
Guenter
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
