Re: [PATCH v8 0/7] i2c: Add FSI-attached I2C master algorithm

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 1:42 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
<benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-05-31 at 00:31 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 12:07 AM, Eddie James
>> <eajames@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> I'll comment the series later, though you have to address previous
>> comments first:
>> - understand devm_ purpose and how it works
>
> I think it is perfectly understood and I don't see what your problem
> here is. So please be a proper civil human being an express your
> concern precisely rather than with aggressive comments.

I apologize for this kind of tone, let's assume it was a bad day.

> Now to clarify that specific point, devm purpose is to automatically
> clean up the resources used by the device when it is torn down.
>
> However, in this specific case, it makes sense to dispose of the port
> structure explicitly because this is a failure in registering an
> individual port which doesn't lead to a failure of the entire driver.
>
> Thus not freeing it means the structure would remain allocated
> uselessly until the whole driver is torn down.

Yep, so, why do we care? If it holds few hundreds of bytes, can't we
live with it?
If no, the devm_k*alloc() is a wrong choice in the first place.

>> - discuss with maintainer a design of enumerating ports
>
> I've been at that game for at least a good 2 decades. Maintainers
> generally do *not* discuss design until a patch is proposed. I even
> still try every now and then, maintainers are like lawyers, they don't
> want to tell you what to do in case they still want to reject it after
> seeing it later :-) I know I've been one of them for long enough.
>
> If you have specific issues with how this is done, please express them
> clearly. It's quite possible that there's some better way to do what
> Eddie is doing here, but without *construtive* feedback this is
> pointless.

It feels like you duplicate approach which is done in OF generic case.
That is my concern. Though, if Wolfram is telling that is OK, I have
no objections.

> I'm disappointed here because we have an example of somebody rather new
> producing what is overall pretty damn good code,

That is true. His code much better than many I have seen before.

> despite a few corner
> issues, and being (again) treated like crap.

Sorry for that, life is harsh.

> This isn't the right way to operate, and I believe this has been made
> clear many times before.

Yes.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko