From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE7BBC28CC0 for ; Thu, 30 May 2019 19:58:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34F2D25457 for ; Thu, 30 May 2019 19:58:27 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="kMAWSKCn" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726382AbfE3T60 (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 May 2019 15:58:26 -0400 Received: from mail-lj1-f194.google.com ([209.85.208.194]:44996 "EHLO mail-lj1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725897AbfE3T6Z (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 May 2019 15:58:25 -0400 Received: by mail-lj1-f194.google.com with SMTP id e13so7242909ljl.11; Thu, 30 May 2019 12:58:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gbG0dcEiRmqzN9/hOTcBM5kfsYXv777iQ1mRuKOqyJY=; b=kMAWSKCnpNfYB3h9MoyGvd53twCSULqKHbeFbQ8idKnaDM0e9tXTS1+sXw35ePUxA6 MokTUJkJNMT7T5i5dXD5jM/OVKHZJekOjs5v7SqoTAaUpJa27Sor3eCF1kKfbegwt+s9 RAwHKGVWqfscD8ORjJgDahWvQjhQfOgq7u5zRiFb9t2AbiUozocOna2WWXvyP0W41C8e TWAWqRTY1Xl6KdsHOBjEu3aDrPtsnGdaip2gBImm14n6mcYdftUEL6DdIuzvjclAZlMZ KDf6Frw55tlCPQ2A+d56NICe1an98G6ABHqawEMQU41HBf/RBbctywqbwbDZPy6EnkoN PVLQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=gbG0dcEiRmqzN9/hOTcBM5kfsYXv777iQ1mRuKOqyJY=; b=ost5HSJcV5IKuniZb6b0owOazGK34G3ibFM8aKxBMXnT9fPyHXuGiqBDiRzn60bpJ/ R8HZlaae1Wvy3bSeTefqF1UDAFW6gBAE/uBXeXxJZkX9rero3kaluwWKDImoOyI2SzI6 flsywCNk7XpijMSeTAM9Eq/mRh2XSFq6iZPM9oCVIZBW9LPdV/P40tiid0EbQEbU2L8Y BN17tRTuZdqFY+cyBj5OSlPo+DBVrzSInkxqllEvciX41Ob/liafTyjp9TPRzetypz1y oc/WqTZgU59/rQjIsEwyRq9fA5fi6ibs/3W6KeXJgLV3dpX3pHJV/sDONs51L9co2i9X O2Yw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWuapru+o2luSF11Ufk7weTkPZQJXg3bNy3zdXF5LUNo1P9EhZn JubEBaA+urbWB8JblHAIbxOY381P X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyygqtVXZFrJdcj0fLwDOT1FSZ9EmkBgevHCDoMn1bcVBB3GWHduqEr3q54mDaReX9rveOaDA== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9ed6:: with SMTP id h22mr3362292ljk.29.1559246302728; Thu, 30 May 2019 12:58:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.17] (cop108.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl. [83.31.195.108]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y4sm683970lje.24.2019.05.30.12.58.20 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 30 May 2019 12:58:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v4 6/6] leds: lm36274: Introduce the TI LM36274 LED driver To: Lee Jones Cc: Dan Murphy , Pavel Machek , broonie@kernel.org, lgirdwood@gmail.com, linux-leds@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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> From: Jacek Anaszewski Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 21:58:19 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190530073827.GL4574@dell> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. > 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. [0] https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1059075/ [1] https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1059080/ [2] https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1077066/ -- Best regards, Jacek Anaszewski