Re: èå: [PATCH] usb: serial: update CH34x driver in drivers/usb/serial

[Greg KH]

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:03:48AM +0100, Aidan Thornton wrote:
> On 24 Jun 2016 16:10, "Greg KH" <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 01:42:24PM +0800, WCH Tech Group wrote:
> > >       There are several reasons why we decided to revoke the old one after
> > > communicating with the author of
> > > ch341.c (Frank A Kingswood <frank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>), first of
> all
> > > we want the driver to support both ch341 and
> > > ch340 chips, so we changed the driver name from "ch341.c" to "ch34x.c",
> >
> > No need to rename the driver to support multiple chips.  Keep it the
> > same name, and just add the new device support.  That's how we do it for
> > lots and lots of Linux drivers, the name doesn't really matter that
> > much (look at the option.c driver for one such example.)
> >
> > > secondly the new driver and old one are coded
> > > by different authors, in fact there's no connection between them.
> >
> > Ok, but the functionality is the same, so please just fix up the
> > existing driver to add support for the new device, and fix any existing
> > bugs.
> >
> > In Linux you don't get to just delete a working driver, you have to
> > evolve code over time, sending patches that do one logical thing at a
> > time so that people can properly review them.  Your patch is not how
> > this is supposed to happen at all.
> >
> > So please just break up your changes into small logical ones, and send a
> > series of patches adding the new device support and fix up any known
> > bugs.
> >
> > After that is all done, if you _really_ want to rename the driver, then
> > we can discuss that, but first do the work to evolve the driver, as that
> > is much more difficult.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h
> 
> It looks like someone by the name of Grigori Goronzy (CCed) had a patch series
> or four attempting to do this that just never went anywhere like all the other
> attempts. Might be worth someone talking to him or looking at his patches.

Do you have a pointer to those patches on the mailing list?  Why were
they rejected?

> Seriously, this is... I was considering trying to get parity support merged so
> I don't have to keep patching it in, but it feels like a total waste of effort
> at this point after seeing all the other attempts.

No reason you can't take those patches and fix them up and resend them,
right?

thanks,

greg k-h