From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752601Ab0CFQnm (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Mar 2010 11:43:42 -0500 Received: from mail-gy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.160.174]:58081 "EHLO mail-gy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751713Ab0CFQnl convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Mar 2010 11:43:41 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20100306050536.GA20539@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> References: <20100205203201.GA32281@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> <20100209191620.GA24539@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> <20100305120015.a2008f46.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20100305123527.d6d68e56.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20100306002823.GA22095@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> <20100306050536.GA20539@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> From: Grant Likely Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 09:43:20 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 3a14de5a7f9f695a Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] of/gpio: Implement GPIOLIB notifier hooks To: avorontsov@ru.mvista.com Cc: Andrew Morton , David Brownell , Bill Gatliff , Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:05 PM, Anton Vorontsov 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.