Re: [linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 04/14] pinctrl: sunxi: v3: really introduce support for V3

[Maxime Ripard]

On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 12:05:12PM +0100, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Le mardi 12 mars 2019 Ã 23:45 +0800, Icenowy Zheng a Ãcrit :
> >
> > ä 2019å3æ12æ GMT+08:00 äå11:36:54, Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@xxxxxxxxxxx> åå:
> > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 11:22:46PM +0800, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
> > > > Introduce the GPIO pins that is only available on V3 (not on V3s) to
> > > the
> > > > V3 pinctrl driver.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@xxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sun8i-v3.c | 291
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++--
> > > >  drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.h    |   2 +
> > > >  2 files changed, 275 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sun8i-v3.c
> > > b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sun8i-v3.c
> > > > index 6704ce8e5e3d..54c210871a95 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sun8i-v3.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sun8i-v3.c
> > > > @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
> > > >  /*
> > > > - * Allwinner V3s SoCs pinctrl driver.
> > > > + * Allwinner V3/V3s SoCs pinctrl driver.
> > > >   *
> > > >   * Copyright (C) 2016 Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@xxxxxxxx>
> > > >   *
> > > > @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
> > > >
> > > >  #include "pinctrl-sunxi.h"
> > > >
> > > > -static const struct sunxi_desc_pin sun8i_v3s_pins[] = {
> > > > +static const struct sunxi_desc_pin sun8i_v3_v3s_pins[] = {
> > >
> > > I'm not sure all that remaining is worth it to be honest. It adds a
> > > lot of noise for no particular reason (and the same goes for renaming
> > > the file itself)
> >
> > Maybe keeping names is okay "for historial reasons".
> >
> > In fact I want to keep them.
>
> My two cents about this: kernel development is plagued by the unability
> to rename and rework things as soon as backward compatibility is
> involved. I believe that renaming and reworking things is quite a good
> thing to do when it leads to a situation that is easier to understand
> and makes more sense.
>
> In this case, I don't see any blockers that would prevent us from doing
> this, so I am strongly in favor of it. I really don't see how increased
> noise and "historical reasons" make up for better clarity.

It simplifies the git history, for once, which has the side effect of
reducing conflicts too.

A second one is: Do you prefer to review patches that have some
significant value (like a new feature, a bugfix, a new SoC support,
etc) or one that renames files and / or symbols?

Maxime

--
Maxime Ripard, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature