On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 12:32 PM Henning Schild <henning.schild@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Am Wed, 24 Aug 2022 18:59:17 +0300 > schrieb Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>: > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 5:04 PM Henning Schild > > <henning.schild@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: ... > > > +#define gpio_dir_invert(type) ((type) == nct6116d) > > > +#define gpio_data_single(type) ((type) == nct6116d) > > > > What you are trying to do here is to put GPIO maintainers / heavy > > contributors on a minefield (basically moving your job to their > > shoulders). Please, provide a proper namespace and not gpio_ one. I'm > > talking in my "GPIO heavy contributor" hat on. > > No i was trying to avoid having to touch those other 4 existing macros, > touching lines that checkpatch.pl and you will pick on again. Adding > the prefixes just to those new ones would be inconsistent and also not > nice. Do you have other prefixes in those files starting with gpio_?! Now I see it. I'm not sure why this pops up only now. > > With that fixed I can survive w/o pr_fmt() being in this patch. If you > > are going to address this, you may add my tag in a new version. > > It is a bit unfortunate that you seem to be surprised where i said i > was going to not address this. Yes, because you are not a newbie and you know that the community doesn't work on a "take it or leave" basis. > And once the new series comes insist on > another round ... which involves testing and what not. Which is your job as a developer. > But hey, i will send a v6 with style refactoring patches and test it > all over again. Thanks! > Thanks everyone for the review, i hope that next version will be > acceptable and not open new discussion with the new patches coming. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
