Re: [PATCH] i2c: Convert to subsys_platform_driver()

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 04/11/2026 21:37, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2026 at 06:38:40PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 04/11/2026 12:33, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
>>>
>>> Replace the open-coded subsys_initcall()/module_exit() platform driver
>>> registration with subsys_platform_driver().
>>>
>>> No functional change.
> 
> ...
> 
>>> -subsys_initcall(i2c_adap_pxa_init);
>>> -module_exit(i2c_adap_pxa_exit);
>>> +subsys_platform_driver(i2c_pxa_driver);
>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-s3c2410.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-s3c2410.c
>>> index 15e14a6fe6dc..dd1f6f854a32 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-s3c2410.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-s3c2410.c
>>> @@ -1188,18 +1188,7 @@ static struct platform_driver s3c24xx_i2c_driver = {
>>>  		.of_match_table = of_match_ptr(s3c24xx_i2c_match),
>>>  	},
>>>  };
>>> -
>>> -static int __init i2c_adap_s3c_init(void)
>>> -{
>>> -	return platform_driver_register(&s3c24xx_i2c_driver);
>>> -}
>>> -subsys_initcall(i2c_adap_s3c_init);
>>> -
>>> -static void __exit i2c_adap_s3c_exit(void)
>>> -{
>>> -	platform_driver_unregister(&s3c24xx_i2c_driver);
>>> -}
>>> -module_exit(i2c_adap_s3c_exit);
>>> +subsys_platform_driver(s3c24xx_i2c_driver);
>>
>> Apparently reviewing only a few lines out of 300 is still reviewing:
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/9e39502a-dd17-4fa2-98a3-9019523cb5e8@xxxxxxxxxx/
>>
>> Therefore:
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> In the similar way
> 
>   Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> # s3c24xx
> 
> (Note, I specifically put double space in front to make this as an example and not overwrite your tags)
> 
> And to others, the problem with partial reviews are lying on the side of the
> sender as it's not reviewer's fault that unrelated things are going in a bundle
> and not in the proper per-driver series (where each of the driver may have
> distinct maintainer).

Re-iterating my earlier opinion, the reviewer is at fault as well
because either should use Ack, because person did not review THE patch,
or at least path-limiting comment like you pointed above.

I'll send v2 of my patch for submitting patches mentioning this syntax.

Best regards,
Krzysztof