Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] hwmon: ltc4282: add support for the LTC4282 chip

From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>, Andy Shevchenko <andy@kernel.org>
Cc: "Nuno Sá" <noname.nuno@gmail.com>,
	"kernel test robot" <lkp@intel.com>,
	"Nuno Sa via B4 Relay" <devnull+nuno.sa.analog.com@kernel.org>,
	linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, oe-kbuild-all@lists.linux.dev,
	"Jean Delvare" <jdelvare@suse.com>,
	"Rob Herring" <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	"Conor Dooley" <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
	"Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@lwn.net>,
	"Bartosz Golaszewski" <brgl@bgdev.pl>,
	"Linus Walleij" <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] hwmon: ltc4282: add support for the LTC4282 chip
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2023 10:03:46 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <cacce41f-f1c0-4f76-ab24-c6ea8bb0303f@roeck-us.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bcc5da24-7243-42fa-a82b-48851ce17c0c@kernel.org>

On 11/28/23 08:50, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 27/11/2023 17:03, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 09:12:14AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 27/11/2023 09:10, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> Wait, this was not even unusual test, just standard compile, which means
>>> you did not do basic tests on your end. You must build your new driver
>>> with W=1, smatch, sparse and coccinelle before sending upstream.
>>
>> Well, sparse is lagging in development, for the last year it's at least two
>> times it broke kernel builds because of being not ready for the new stuff used
>> in the kernel. Do we have anybody to sync this? I don't think so, hence
>> requiring this from developer is doubtful. Otherwise I agree, that basic
>> compilation with GCC/LLVM must be done.
> 
> Sparse still detects several issues and handles lock annotations, so it
> is useful. But if you disagree with that part, I still insist on Smatch
> (which is actively developed and works great) and Coccinelle (also
> actively developed).
> 

Quite frankly, for my part I would be more than happy if people would read
and follow Documentation/hwmon/submitting-patches.rst. Most submitters don't
bother. That doesn't even mention building with W=1 (the much more optimistic
me who wrote that document several years ago thought that would be obvious),
much less running any source code analysis tools . Feel free to submit a patch
to strengthen the wording there. If you do that, it would have to be more explicit
then "run smatch" or "run coccinelle" because hardly anyone would know how
to do that.

Until then, there isn't really anything to insist on. I even had submitters
react angry when I asked them to follow the guidance in that document,
so I won't insist on anything that isn't documented as requirement.
Quite frankly, most of the time I'd probably fix up issues such as missing
"static" myself because I am tired having to argue about it with submitters
who don't care.

Guenter