From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756818Ab1AaXBK (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jan 2011 18:01:10 -0500 Received: from mail-gw0-f46.google.com ([74.125.83.46]:60643 "EHLO mail-gw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756754Ab1AaXBH (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jan 2011 18:01:07 -0500 Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 16:01:00 -0700 From: Grant Likely To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?H=E5vard?= Skinnemoen Cc: Thomas Chou , Ben Dooks , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, nios2-dev@sopc.et.ntust.edu.tw, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, Jean Delvare , Albert Herranz Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c-gpio: add devicetree support Message-ID: <20110131230100.GE27856@angua.secretlab.ca> References: <1296403013-6058-1-git-send-email-thomas@wytron.com.tw> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 02:35:31PM -0800, Håvard Skinnemoen wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Grant Likely > wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Håvard Skinnemoen > > wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Thomas Chou wrote: > >>> From: Albert Herranz > >>> > >>> This patch is based on an earlier patch from Albert Herranz, > >>> http://git.infradead.org/users/herraa1/gc-linux-2.6.git/commit/ > >>> 9854eb78607c641ab5ae85bcbe3c9d14ac113733 > >> > >> That commit has a single-line description of which I don't understand > >> a single word (unless "wii" is what I think it is, which seems > >> likely). Could you please explain how that commit relates to this > >> patch? > > > > The URL got wrapped.  Try this one (assuming my mailer doesn't wrap it): > > > > http://git.infradead.org/users/herraa1/gc-linux-2.6.git/commit/9854eb78607c641ab5ae85bcbe3c9d14ac113733 > > Ok, that seems to be a _bit_ more related, but not that much. I'd > really prefer a patch description which can stand on its own. > [...] > > >> Not saying that it necessarily _is_ a terrible idea, but I think the > >> reasoning behind it needs to be included in the patch description. > > > > Nah, he doesn't really need to defend this since it is a well > > established pattern.  device tree support is in core code now (see > > of_node an of_match_table in include/linux/device.h), and other > > drivers do exactly this. > > Well, perhaps you're right, but I still think the patch description is > a bit on the thin side. In particular, terms like "as Grant suggested" > isn't very helpful for people like me who don't know what you > suggested (even though I'm sure it was a good suggestion). > > I think the patch lacks a good description of what's being changed and > why. The references may be nice to have as a supplement to that, but > describing things entirely in terms of some unknown e-mail discussion > that happened earlier is not very helpful for people who want to > figure out what's going on a couple of months or years from now. No arguments from me on those points. g.