Re: [lm-sensors] [RFC PATCH] hwmon: (max6650) Convert to be a platform driver

[Laszlo Papp <lpapp@kde.org>]

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Laszlo Papp <lpapp@kde.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de> wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:58:17 +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
>>> > The MFD driver has now been added, so this driver is now being adopted to be a
>>> > subdevice driver on top of it. This means, the i2c driver usage is being
>>> > converted to platform driver usage all around.
>>> >
>>> > Signed-off-by: Laszlo Papp <lpapp@kde.org>
>>> > ---
>>> > This patch has been compile tested only and will be tested with real hardware,
>>> > but early reviews to catch any trivial issues would be welcome.
>>> >  drivers/hwmon/Kconfig   |   2 +-
>>> >  drivers/hwmon/max6650.c | 155 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------
>>> >  2 files changed, 79 insertions(+), 78 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> >  /*
>>> >   * Insmod parameters
>>> > @@ -105,24 +108,23 @@ module_param(clock, int, S_IRUGO);
>>> >
>>> >  #define DIV_FROM_REG(reg) (1 << (reg & 7))
>>> >
>>> > -static int max6650_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>>> > -                    const struct i2c_device_id *id);
>>> > -static int max6650_init_client(struct i2c_client *client);
>>> > -static int max6650_remove(struct i2c_client *client);
>>> > +static int max6650_probe(struct platform_device *pdev);
>>> > +static int max6650_init_client(struct platform_device *pdev);
>>> > +static int max6650_remove(struct platform_device *pdev);
>>> >  static struct max6650_data *max6650_update_device(struct device *dev);
>>>
>>> It would be good to remove these forward declarations in the future.
>>>
>>> If no one volunteers I'll happily do it.
>>
>> Guenter just did:
>>
>> http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/2014-February/041224.html
>>
>> Any change to the max6650 driver should go on top of his patch series
>> to avoid conflicts:
>>
>> http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/2014-February/041223.html
>
> As far as I can see, that patch set was not even tested, so how can it
> go in? I was told that any patch should be _runtime_ tested, too.
> Fwiw, I do not have time to test those personally, he would need to
> find someone else if that requirement really holds true.
>
> I would not really like to fix bugs appearing in that code to get my
> features in.

Also, since my change has been around for 2-3 months now, I would
really prefer not to be forced to rewrite it again from scratch.
Surely, you can wait with those, more or less, cosmetic non-runtime
tested changes?

This would impose me a lot of additional work again, and I personally
do not see the benefit of it. In my book at least, feature is over
internal polishing.