Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] mtd: nand: Cleanup/rework the atmel_nand driver
From: Boris Brezillon
Date: Tue Feb 21 2017 - 03:06:49 EST
On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 01:54:37 +0200
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 1:40 AM, Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 10:50 PM, Boris Brezillon
> > <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 21:38:03 +0100
> >> Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2017 22:27:17 +0200
> >>> Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> > On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Boris Brezillon
> >>> > <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > > drivers/mtd/nand/atmel/nand-controller.c | 2269 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>> > > drivers/mtd/nand/atmel_nand.c | 2479 ------------------------------
> >>> >
> >>> > Does -M -C help you?
> >>> > At least it would help reviewers
> >>> >
> >>> No it doesn't, because files were not just moved around using git mv,
> >>> it's a complete rewrite of the driver. IIUC, you're about to review
> >>> this submission, or are you just trolling like last time?
> >> My bad, I mistaken you with someone else. Sorry for being harsh, but my
> >> explanation stands ;-).
> > No problem. I was asking since it so big and on first glance looks
> > like a partial copy (I dunno if parameter to -C makes it somehow
> > useful), though I can't review this. It's too big to me. Sorry I'm
> > really not trolling, just didn't read commit message carefully.
> Okay, I very quickly looked into the code, what I noticed
> - you like extra parens and empty lines in some cases (not big deal)
Can you point specific places where you think these are not needed?
> - some functions perhaps might have been refactored to have common
> pieces in error handling, though I didn't read core carefully.
Again, be more precise.
> Most important part I have noticed is a GPIO request.
> I didn't get why you almost repeat gpiod_get() in case of platform data?
> Shouldn't we have GPIO look up table?
> Can we use builtin device properties (for GPIO and/or overall)?
Sorry but I don't get it. Can give an example of what you'd like me to