2020. július 26., vasárnap 20:46 keltezéssel, Andy Shevchenko írta: > On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 7:39 PM Barnabás Pőcze wrote: > > > 2020. július 26., vasárnap 18:20 keltezéssel, Andy Shevchenko írta: > > > > > On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 6:45 PM Barnabás Pőcze wrote: > > ... > > > > > A patch series1 has been submitted to the platform-driver-x86 list before I subscribed to that list, so I cannot react to it in the form of a reply, > > > > > > JFYI: patchwork allows you to download messages in mbox format which > > > most of MUA allows to use and reply to. > > > > I have never heard of that, but I will try to keep it in mind. Thank you. > > You are welcome! It's usual practice how you can get a proper reply. > Also another possibility is to get somewhere the Message-Id header. > Most (good) MUAs allow inserting In-Reply-To (IIRC its name) header > with the provided message ID (derived from the corresponding header). > Got it. Thanks. > > > > so I resorted to writing to you personally, since you were the last (and only) person to react to that series. > > > > Patchwork shows its state as "Changes requested", but I don't see any comments on v3 of the series. Can you please take a look and explain what needs to be done for it to be merged? > > > > > > As pointed out during v2 review [2] the work is needed to be done, i.e. > > > "Don't forget to update any documentation if needed." > > > > I don't know if it relevant, but in the first mail, the author writes: > > "The old names were not documented explicitly and new generic software should automatically use the new attributes, which may allow to drop the old names." > > As far as I see, that is correct, those attribute names are not documented anywhere in the kernel (except in the commit message of the patch that introduced them) (at least grep didn't show any results). And the new ones are documented in ABI/sysfs-class-power. > > Either way documentation should be present in the ThinkPad one. > I am quite new to Linux kernel development, and I don't exactly understand which piece of documentation you refer to. The only file under Documentation/ that contains "thinkpad" in its name is admin-guide/laptops/thinkpad-acpi.rst, which makes no mention of battery charge limits. So it should be mentioned there? Or it should be documented in the driver itself that those two are obsolete, etc.? Or both? > > Possibly a warning could be emitted when software uses the old attributes? Or what do you recommend? > > No warning, just provide documentation. > > I'm fine if you (it seems the author is not you for that series?) > append a follow up patch with this. > That is correct. I am not the author. > Thanks for pointing out to this series anyway. > > -- > > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko
