From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jacek Anaszewski Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v4 6/6] leds: lm36274: Introduce the TI LM36274 LED driver Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 21:44:25 +0200 Message-ID: <8b4cfc12-284d-6daf-c82d-4c8e487cc203@gmail.com> References: <20190522192733.13422-1-dmurphy@ti.com> <20190522192733.13422-7-dmurphy@ti.com> <20190523125012.GB20354@amd> <0c2bd6af-92c5-2458-dc41-1ea413545347@ti.com> <89a80aa8-66ee-d0ec-fa54-c55ca8de06af@gmail.com> <20190529135821.GK4574@dell> <20190530073827.GL4574@dell> <20190531062312.GP4574@dell> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20190531062312.GP4574@dell> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Lee Jones Cc: Dan Murphy , Pavel Machek , broonie@kernel.org, lgirdwood@gmail.com, linux-leds@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-leds@vger.kernel.org On 5/31/19 8:23 AM, Lee Jones wrote: > On Thu, 30 May 2019, Jacek Anaszewski wrote: > >> On 5/30/19 9:38 AM, Lee Jones wrote: >>> On Wed, 29 May 2019, Jacek Anaszewski wrote: >>> >>>> On 5/29/19 3:58 PM, Lee Jones wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 24 May 2019, Jacek Anaszewski wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> On 5/23/19 9:09 PM, Dan Murphy wrote: >>>>>>> Pavel >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for the review >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 5/23/19 7:50 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/leds/leds-lm36274.c >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> +static int lm36274_parse_dt(struct lm36274 *lm36274_data) >>>>>>>>> +{ >>>>>>>>> + struct fwnode_handle *child = NULL; >>>>>>>>> + char label[LED_MAX_NAME_SIZE]; >>>>>>>>> + struct device *dev = &lm36274_data->pdev->dev; >>>>>>>>> + const char *name; >>>>>>>>> + int child_cnt; >>>>>>>>> + int ret = -EINVAL; >>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>> + /* There should only be 1 node */ >>>>>>>>> + child_cnt = device_get_child_node_count(dev); >>>>>>>>> + if (child_cnt != 1) >>>>>>>>> + return ret; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'd do explicit "return -EINVAL" here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ACK >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> +static int lm36274_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>>>>>>>> +{ >>>>>>>>> + struct ti_lmu *lmu = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent); >>>>>>>>> + struct lm36274 *lm36274_data; >>>>>>>>> + int ret; >>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>> + lm36274_data = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*lm36274_data), >>>>>>>>> + GFP_KERNEL); >>>>>>>>> + if (!lm36274_data) { >>>>>>>>> + ret = -ENOMEM; >>>>>>>>> + return ret; >>>>>>>>> + } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And certainly do "return -ENOMEM" explicitly here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ACK >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Acked-by: Pavel Machek >>>>>> >>>>>> I've done all amendments requested by Pavel and updated branch >>>>>> ib-leds-mfd-regulator on linux-leds.git, but in the same time >>>>> >>>>> What do you mean by updated? You cannot update an 'ib' (immutable >>>>> branch). Immutable means that it cannot change, by definition. >>>> >>>> We have already talked about that. Nobody has pulled so the branch >>>> could have been safely updated. >>> >>> You have no sure way to know that. And since I have no way to know, >>> or faith that you won't update it again, pulling it now/at all would >>> seem like a foolish thing to do. >> >> Sorry, but you are simply unjust. You're pretending to portray the >> situation as if I have been notoriously causing merge conflicts in >> linux-next which did not take place. >> >> Just to recap what this discussion is about: >> >> On 7 Apr 2019: >> >> 1. I sent pull request [0]. >> 2. 45 minutes later I updated it after discovering one omission [1]. >> It was rather small chance for it to be pulled as quickly as that. >> And even if it happened it wouldn't have been much harmful - we >> wouldn't have lost e.g. weeks of testing in linux-next due to that >> fact. >> >> On 21 May 2019: >> >> 3. I sent another pull request [2] to you and REGULATOR maintainers. >> After it turned out that lack of feedback from REGULATOR maintainers >> was caused by failing to send them the exact copies of patches to >> review, I informed you about possible need for updating the branch. >> Afterwards I received a reply from you saying that you hadn't pulled >> the branch anyway. At that point I was sure that neither MFD nor >> REGULATOR tree contains the patches. And only after that I updated >> the branch. > > Here are 2 examples where you have changed immutable branches, which > is 100% of the Pull Requests I have received from you. Using that > record as a benchmark, the situation hardly seems unjust. > >>> Until you can provide me with an assurance that you will not keep >>> updating/changing the supposedly immutable pull-requests you send out, >>> I won't be pulling any more in. >> >> I can just uphold the assurance which is implicitly assumed for anyone >> who has never broken acclaimed rules. As justified above. > > You have broken the rules every (100% of the) time. Yes, I admit, I would lose in court. >> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1059075/ >> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1059080/ >> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1077066/ > > So we have 2 choices moving forward; you can either provide me with > assurance that you have learned from this experience and will never > change an *immutable* branch again, or I can continue to handle them, > which has been the preference for some years. > > If you choose the former and adaptions need to be made in the future, > the correct thing to do is create a *new*, different pull-request > which has its own *new*, different tag, but uses the original tag as a > base. I choose the former. That being said: Hereby I solemnly declare never ever change an immutable branch again. -- Best regards, Jacek Anaszewski