Re: [PATCH v6 0/4] HID: i2c-hid: Reorganize to allow supporting goodix,gt7375p

[Will Deacon]

On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 07:54:40AM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 7:20 AM Benjamin Tissoires
> <benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 10:12 PM Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 4:41 PM Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >  .../bindings/input/goodix,gt7375p.yaml        |  65 +++++
> > > >  arch/arm64/configs/defconfig                  |   3 +-
> > > >  drivers/hid/Makefile                          |   2 +-
> > > >  drivers/hid/i2c-hid/Kconfig                   |  47 +++-
> > > >  drivers/hid/i2c-hid/Makefile                  |   6 +-
> > > >  drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid-acpi.c            | 159 +++++++++++
> > > >  drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid-core.c            | 254 +++---------------
> > > >  drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid-of-goodix.c       | 116 ++++++++
> > > >  drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid-of.c              | 143 ++++++++++
> > > >  drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid.h                 |  22 ++
> > > >  include/linux/platform_data/i2c-hid.h         |  41 ---
> > > >  11 files changed, 596 insertions(+), 262 deletions(-)
> > > >  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/goodix,gt7375p.yaml
> > > >  create mode 100644 drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid-acpi.c
> > > >  create mode 100644 drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid-of-goodix.c
> > > >  create mode 100644 drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid-of.c
> > > >  delete mode 100644 include/linux/platform_data/i2c-hid.h
> > >
> > > Are there any additional changes that folks would like with this
> > > series?  It's not crazy urgent to get it in, but it touches enough
> > > lines of code that it'd be nice to get it in before other patches land
> > > and it gets merge conflicts.
> >
> > Sorry for the delay. I was having an internal deadline last week. I
> > just re-read the code, and I am quite happy with it. I also just
> > tested it on the i2c-hid w/ acpi machine I have here, and it seems OK.
> >
> > So other than that, do we need to have approvals for patch 2/4
> > (arch/arm64/configs/defconfig)? I can easily take that in the HID
> > tree, but I prefer having the approval from the maintainers first.
> > Catalin, Will?
> 
> From my past knowledge of the arm64 defconfig, I think it's a bit of a
> free-for-all, sort of like updates to the "MAINTAINERS" file.  Doing a
> "git log" on it I see commits happen from every corner and very few of
> them have Acks.  I think many (but not all) of the commits to this
> file go through trees that feed into the SoC tree (Arnd and Olof)
> because those maintainers care about enabling drivers for boards that
> they're supporting, but changes come from elsewhere too.
> 
> Obviously an Ack wouldn't hurt, though.  Since get_maintainer points
> at Will and Catalin I wouldn't say no if one of them wanted to Ack
> patch #2 in the series.  ;-)

For the avoidance of doubt:

Acked-by: Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx>

on patch 2. But yes, although there are a few things I really care about
in defconfig (e.g. things like page size!), generally speaking we don't
need to Ack everything that changes in there.

That said, might be worth checking whether arm-soc have any defconfig
changes queued in -next so you don't end up with conflicts.

Will