From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757585AbaDWP5v (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2014 11:57:51 -0400 Received: from imap.devoid-pointer.net ([31.31.77.140]:49649 "EHLO smtp.devoid-pointer.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932363AbaDWP5Z (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2014 11:57:25 -0400 From: Michal =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Mal=FD?= To: simon@mungewell.org Cc: Dmitry Torokhov , oneukum@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jkosina@suse.cz, elias.vds@gmail.com, anssi.hannula@iki.fi, linux-input@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/24] input: Port hid-dr to ff-memless-next Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 17:57:20 +0200 Message-ID: <8632820.WT3uD8DXZi@sigyn> User-Agent: KMail/4.13 (Linux/3.14.1-1-my-rd; KDE/4.13.0; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <0792885b3347c5935a0af7a7a3f3bc70.squirrel@mungewell.org> References: <1398175209-9565-1-git-send-email-madcatxster@devoid-pointer.net> <20140423154201.GA10531@core.coreip.homeip.net> <0792885b3347c5935a0af7a7a3f3bc70.squirrel@mungewell.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 23 of April 2014 11:47:05 simon@mungewell.org wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 03:14:44PM +0000, madcatxster@devoid-pointer.net > > > > wrote: > >> This is another case where even the old code was flawed, right? Should > >> I try to stuff the fixes into these patches or would a few extra > >> patches addressing these problems be an easier to review solution? I > >> can append such patches to the MLNX patchset. > > > > Changes addressing pre-existing problem should go into separate patches > > (preferably applicable first). > > As a by-stander who would like to see MLNX move forward, should it be > heldback by pre-existing problems in drivers that the MLNX dev(s) don't > have hardware to test against...? > > Simon. Either approach is fine be me - I can rebase the MLNX patchset against the fixes and submit it again. I suppose that this is a good opportunity to fix a bunch old issues that would pass unnoticed otherwise. I would however appreciate as much comments regarding MLNX itself before I begin cleaning the ancient dust. Thanks for your input, Michal