Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] serial: rewrite pxa2xx-uart to use 8250_core

From	Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@free.fr>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] serial: rewrite pxa2xx-uart to use 8250_core
Date	2015-12-20 00:20 +0100
Message-ID	<qHyX8-19a-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(3 earlier) <qHp7r-3fu-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <qHpK9-3J2-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <qHuJP-6Om-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <qHvwd-7mb-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <qHw8W-7P7-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

Sergei Ianovich <ynvich@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sat, 2015-12-19 at 20:31 +0100, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
>> Sergei Ianovich <ynvich@gmail.com> writes:
>> Thanks for spotting this. This is caused by a change in the latest
>> > version of the patch (SERIAL_8250_PXA instead of SERIAL_PXA). This
>> > change could be reverted.
>> Actually I'm against the revert.
>> The name change looks very good to me, please keep it.
>
> Is it worth adding an error if CONFIG_SERIAL_PXA is defined?
I don't think so.

> Or is there any other way of preventing this patch launching Linus' "flag
> days" as Russel King named it?
I must think about it, and test a bit more.
Ah and a small hint : if you include back Russell in the conversation, don't
forget the double "ll" if you wish him to answer.

> I understand that people are afraid of taking this patch. If it starts
> causing troubles at runtime, it will be difficult to diagnose. There
> will be no console for most people. So it is probably good idea to fail
> at boot time.
Who are "the people" ? If it's about something already written in a mailing
list, please point me to it so that it can help me think about it.

>> > > But that can be handled in an subsequent patch to keep your acks
>> > > and
>> > > reviews.
>> > I will respin the patch. Please comment on the acks and reviews.
>> > They
>> > were made at an earlier version of the patch. That version no longer
>> > applies. Can the updated version carry on the flags?
>> I don't get you. If you mean keeping CONFIG_SERIAL_8250_PXA, then yes,
>> please
>> keep it.
>
> I mean should the patch be re-revied and re-acked?
Well it depends on what was since then. If it's a trivial commit message fix or
a typo, I don't think it's necessary. If it's the algorithm, the code logic, or
even I think you should ask again.

For a name change in CONFIG_SERIAL_PXA into CONFIG_SERIAL_8250_PXA (change from
v3 to v4), I must admit I don't know. Maybe Kevin or Arnd might give a clue.

Cheers.

-- 
Robert
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Thread

Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] serial: rewrite pxa2xx-uart to use 8250_core Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@free.fr> - 2015-12-19 13:50 +0100
  Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] serial: rewrite pxa2xx-uart to use 8250_core Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@free.fr> - 2015-12-19 14:30 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] serial: rewrite pxa2xx-uart to use 8250_core Sergei Ianovich <ynvich@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 19:50 +0100
      Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] serial: rewrite pxa2xx-uart to use 8250_core Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@free.fr> - 2015-12-19 20:40 +0100
        Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] serial: rewrite pxa2xx-uart to use 8250_core Sergei Ianovich <ynvich@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 21:20 +0100
          Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] serial: rewrite pxa2xx-uart to use 8250_core Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@free.fr> - 2015-12-20 00:20 +0100
            Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] serial: rewrite pxa2xx-uart to use 8250_core Sergei Ianovich <ynvich@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 12:30 +0100
              Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] serial: rewrite pxa2xx-uart to use 8250_core Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@free.fr> - 2015-12-22 20:30 +0100

csiph-web