On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:05 PM, Anton Vorontsov <avoront...@ru.mvista.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 08:54:56PM -0700, Grant Likely wrote: > [...] >> The last version of the patches were posted on Feb 8. -rc8 was >> released on Feb 12. For changes to common code, that is a little late >> for getting queued up for the merge window. If it was a subsystem >> that I maintain, say SPI, then I doubt I would have picked it up for >> 2.6.34. > > And of course the part of the OF rework, which was first posted > for *review* on Feb 03, is a completely different story? > > 48 files changed, 317 insertions(+), 575 deletions(-)
Completely uncontroversial changes with zero functional behaviour change. There was no uncertainty about these ones and they were posted almost a week earlier. > It's in Linus' tree now. > > And the other part of the OF rework that was posted for review > on Feb 13 is another story too? It's in Linus' tree as well. All cleanups and bugfixes except for "Don't assume HAVE_LMB" which Jeremy had already posted earlier for review. > Your patches touch 3 architectures, and a lot of the code that > is used by all the OF drivers, still 03 and 13 Feb was OK for > them. > >> But I am not the GPIO maintainer. > > David is. And I heard only positive feedback on the patches > last time. > >> For the record, my main concerns are: >> - Now that I see the implementation, I think that it is too complex. >> The bus notifiers really aren't needed and it can be done with much >> lower impact on the core gpiolib code. > > That's a non-argument, what is "lower impact"? Do I touch any > hot paths? And if nothing has changed, David (again, the gpiolib > maintainer) is happy with the notifiers approach, why would you > care? Adding unneeded notifier infrastructure is churn I don't want to see. >> Changes to common code don't work that way. Sometimes things just >> don't get enough attention and they wait another cycle, get reworked, >> or get dropped entirely. > > See above wrt OF rework patches. which all got attention, were uncontroversial, and did not introduce functional changes. >> For one, the device node pointer is moving out of archdata into >> 'struct device' proper and I've got patches adding OF hooks into the >> core of the platform bus. If those patches look good to GregKH, then >> I'll be pursing the same pattern for the other bus types (i2c, spi, >> etc), and it will be further argument for putting the OF hooks >> directly into gpiolib instead of using a notifier. I'll be posting >> the patches as soon as the merge window closes. > > I don't get it. Why is it a problem to change your patches that > ought to be queued for 2.6.*35*? It's not, and they are going to be queued for 2.6.35. In fact, I didn't posted them this week to avoid adding confusion to the merge window. The issues isn't changing my patches. It is that I don't like the notifier approach, and I intend to prove that it can be done in a better way. g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
