On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 09:30:29AM +1030, Jonathan Woithe wrote: > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 08:16:18AM +0200, Micha?? K??pie?? wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 09:19:59PM +1030, Jonathan Woithe wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:32:16AM +0100, Micha?? K??pie?? wrote: > > > > > This series simplifies handling of both brightness key and hotkey input > > > > > events on Fujitsu laptops by making use of sparse keymaps. This not > > > > > only makes the driver shorter and, hopefully, cleaner, but also enables > > > > > us to get rid of the keycodeX fields inside struct fujitsu_bl, which > > > > > facilitates further cleanups. Also, to simplify error handling, input > > > > > devices registered by fujitsu-laptop are migrated to the devres API > > > > > along the way. > > > > > : > > > I have completed my initial review of this patch series. Aside from the > > > single recommendation about patch 7/8 (posted separately) it looks good. > > > I await your thoughts regarding patch 7/8 so we can finalise and sign off on > > > this series. > > > > Thanks for the review, Jonathan. I agree with your remark regarding the > > potentially confusing name of the variable holding the S64x0 keymap. > > > > As in the past, we have at least two options: I can either post v2 of > > all eight patches with three characters changed or you can provide your > > Reviewed-by for v1, in which case I will kindly ask the maintainers to > > run: > > > > sed -i 's|s6400|s64x0|;' drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c > > > > after applying patch 7/8. Given that this series does a bit more than > > the cleanup series I posted previously, I sense it might be a good idea > > to defer submitting v2 until after subsystem maintainers review v1, just > > in case they find more issues. If that happens, I will post v2 to avoid > > confusion. If not, then v1 can be applied with the one-liner above > > taken into account (or I can post v2 anyway if that would be preferred > > by Darren and Andy). > > > > In other words, I am happy to follow whatever route you and the > > subsystem maintainers suggest and I just want to avoid spamming the > > mailing list. > > I would be interested to hear what Darren and Andy's preference would be, > and have no issue with following that. My personal thought is that it's > best to have a patch series v2 submitted with the keymap fix since I think > that reduces the potential confusion now and in the future. It makes it > clear what exactly is being signed off on in any Reviewed-By tags. This No concerns applying the minor fix. It's very common to say "With XXX, Reviewed-by: ...", so I that's fine. > approach also removes the need for Darren or Andy to special case the > eventual merge of the series (having to remember to do the replacement), > which in turn reduces the chances of little errors creeping in. However, if > Darren and Andy are happy with an alternative then we can go with that. > > As to whether v2 is held until Darren or Andy do their own review, I guess > it makes sense in case they have other suggestions which are similarly > trivial to implement. Completing my review now... > > Regards > jonathan > -- Darren Hart VMware Open Source Technology Center
