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

[Jacek Anaszewski]

On 5/31/19 8:23 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 30 May 2019, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Here are 2 examples where you have changed immutable branches, which
> is 100% of the Pull Requests I have received from you.  Using that
> record as a benchmark, the situation hardly seems unjust.
>
> > > 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.
>
> You have broken the rules every (100% of the) time.

Yes, I admit, I would lose in court.

> > [0] https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1059075/
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1059080/
> > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1077066/
>
> So we have 2 choices moving forward; you can either provide me with
> assurance that you have learned from this experience and will never
> change an *immutable* branch again, or I can continue to handle them,
> which has been the preference for some years.
>
> If you choose the former and adaptions need to be made in the future,
> the correct thing to do is create a *new*, different pull-request
> which has its own *new*, different tag, but uses the original tag as a
> base.

I choose the former. That being said:

Hereby I solemnly declare never ever change an immutable branch again.

--
Best regards,
Jacek Anaszewski