On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 4:57 PM Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 29/09/2022 15:58, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 2:26 PM Daniel Lezcano > > <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> > >> Hi Rafael, > >> > >> are you happy with the changes? > > > > I'll have a look and let you know. > > Great, thanks Well, because you have not added the history of changes to the patches, that will take more time than it would otherwise. Generally, please always add information on what has changed in the patch between different versions of it. > >> I would like to integrate those changes with the thermal pull request > > > > Sure, but it looks like you've got only a few ACKs for these patches > > from the driver people. > > > > Wouldn't it be prudent to give them some more time to review the changes? > > Well I would say I received the ACKs from the drivers which are actively > maintained. Others are either not with a dedicated maintainer or not a > reactive one. The first iteration of the series is from August 5th. So > it has been 2 months. > > I pinged for imx, armada and tegra two weeks ago. OK > The st, hisilicon drivers fall under the thermal maintainers umbrella > > There are three series coming after this series to be posted. I would > like to go forward in the process of cleaning up the framework. IMO two > months is enough to let the maintainers pay attention to the changes, > especially if we do a gentle ping and there are seven versions. > > And after that comes the thermal_zone_device_register() parameters > simplification :) Well, that's all fine, but I don't want people to get surprised by significant changes they haven't expected and I want to avoid missing anything subtle.
