On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 11:40:38AM -0700, Andrey Smirnov wrote: > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Johan Hovold <jo...@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 11:30:54AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > >> Hi! > >> > >> > > drivers/platform/Kconfig | 2 + > >> > > drivers/platform/Makefile | 1 + > >> > > drivers/platform/rave/Kconfig | 26 ++ > >> > > drivers/platform/rave/Makefile | 1 + > >> > > drivers/platform/rave/rave-sp.c | 677 > >> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> > > >> > First of all, why do these live in drivers/platform and why don't use > >> > the mfd subsystem to implement this driver (instead of rolling your own > >> > mfd-implementation)? > >> > >> Sending contributors around like this is quite uncool. > > > > Asking questions when things are done in unexpected ways is part of the > > review process, and the backstory here wasn't documented in the patch or > > cover letter. > > Cover letter for this submission contains the link to v1 of the > patchset (marked as "[v1]"): > > https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=149970632624803&w=2 > > whose cover letter captures why the driver was added to > "drivers/platform" to a degree and contains a link to original > submission:
You cannot expect a reviewer to go through seven revisions of a patch series to find this information. > Granted it is not completely effortless to get to all of that, but I > don't think it is fair to say that all of that was not documented. I said it "wasn't documented in the patch or cover letter", which I still claim to be an accurate description. You did something odd, I called it out, and now the issue is resolved. Let's move on. Johan
