Re: [PATCH] of: spi: Export single device registration method and accessors (v2)

[Pantelis Antoniou <panto-wVdstyuyKrO8r51toPun2/C9HSW9iNxf@public.gmane.org>]

Hi Grant,

> On Nov 21, 2014, at 17:33 , Grant Likely <grant.likely-s3s/WqlpOiPyB63q8FvJNQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 12:22:04 +0000
> , Mark Brown <broonie-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 01:48:06PM +0200, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>>>> On Oct 29, 2014, at 12:14 , Mark Brown <broonie-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> 
>>>> This feels like there is an abstraction problem somewhere, whatever code
>>>> is supposed to use this is going to need to be taught about each
>>>> individual bus which is going to be tedious, I would expect that we'd
>>>> have something like the bus being able to provide a callback which will
>>>> get invoked whenever a new node appears on the parent node for the bus.
>> 
>>> There’s a whole patchset that does exactly this. 
>>> Look at "OF: spi: Add OF notifier handler” and you’ll where this is used.
>> 
>> I deleted that unread I'm afraid; one of the reasons that you should use
>> subject lines matching the styles for the subsystems is that it's one of
>> the things people use to filter out things that actually need attention,
>> if things are busy things that at first glance don't look terribly
>> relevant (like changes to the OF core in this case) are likely to get
>> looked at less urgently or just skipped.
>> 
>> A quick glance suggests that this is adding code inside the SPI core so
>> it's still not explaining why anything is being exported, can you
>> clarify please?
> 
> I have the same question. This doesn't look like it should be exporting
> symbols.
> 
> Also, the way the patch is written causes a lot of code changes to get
> interleaved in the diff. It would be better to split into two patches;
> one that creates the new of_register_spi_device(), and a separate patch
> to add the other new functions. It would be certainly easier to review
> that way.
> 

The diff does make a mess of things; it’s not that complex of a patch.

Your wish shall be granted. I’ll respin this over the weekend.

>> 
>>>> SubmittingPatches says.  Please also try to keep your CC list sane,
>>>> CCing random people just means that you're increasing the volume of mail
>>>> they have to process.  I'm surprised kernel.org accepts so many CCs.
>> 
>>>> I have to say I don't recall ever seeing v1...
>> 
>>> All of them are in the CC list for a reason. 
>> 
>> This is a single, standalone SPI patch - you didn't send it as part of a
>> series (which is the only reason I read it).
> 
> Yes, this is part of the OF overlay series. It should have at least been
> marked as [PATCH 7/8] and that it replaced the previous, buggy, patch 7.
> 
> g.
> 

Regards

— Pantelis