Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] mtd: rawnand: Add NAND controller support on Intel LGM SoC

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 3:03 PM Boris Brezillon
<boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 19:38:03 +0800
> "Ramuthevar, Vadivel MuruganX"
> <vadivel.muruganx.ramuthevar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 16/4/2020 7:17 pm, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 18:40:53 +0800
> > > "Ramuthevar, Vadivel MuruganX"
> > > <vadivel.muruganx.ramuthevar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

...

> > There are different features involved and lines of code is more, if we
> > add new driver patches over xway-nand driver
>
> How about retro-fitting the xway logic into your driver then? I mean,
> adding a 100 lines of code to your driver to get rid of the 500+ lines
> we have in xway_nand.c is still a win.
>
> >
> > is completely looks ugly and it may disturb the existing functionality
> > as well since we don't have platform to validate:'(.
>
> How ugly? Can you show us? Maybe we can come with a solution to make it
> less ugly.
>
> As for the testing part, there are 4 scenarios:
>
> 1/ Your changes work perfectly fine on older platforms. Yay \o/!
> 2/ You break the xway driver and existing users notice it before this
>    series gets merged. Now you found someone to validate your changes.
> 3/ You break the xway driver and none of the existing users notice it
>    before the driver is merged, but they notice it afterwards. Too bad
>    this happened after we've merged the driver, but now you've found
>    someone to help you fix the problem :P.
> 4/ You break things for old platforms but no one ever complains about
>    it, either because there's no users left or because they never
>    update their kernels. In any case, that's no longer your problem.
>    Someone will remove those old platforms one day and get rid of the
>    unneeded code in the NAND driver.
>
> What's more likely to happen is #3 or #4, and I think the NAND
> maintainer would be fine with both.
>
> Note that the NAND subsystem is full of unmaintained legacy drivers, so
> every time we see someone who could help us get rid or update one of
> them we have to take this opportunity.

Don't we rather insist to have a MAINTAINERS record for new code to
avoid (or delay at least) the fate of the legacy drivers?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko