Re: [RESEND PATCH v4 6/6] leds: lm36274: Introduce the TI LM36274 LED driver

[Jacek Anaszewski]

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 <pavel@xxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > 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