Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1597414 > unrolled thread

[PULL REQUEST] i2c for 4.11

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  [PULL REQUEST] i2c for 4.11 Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> - 2017-03-10 13:40 +0100
    Re: [PULL REQUEST] i2c for 4.11 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2017-03-10 19:20 +0100
      Re: [PULL REQUEST] i2c for 4.11 Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> - 2017-03-11 17:10 +0100

#1597414 — [PULL REQUEST] i2c for 4.11

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Linus,

here are some driver bugfixes from I2C. Unusual this time are the two
reverts. One because I accidently picked a patch from the list which I
should have pulled from my co-maintainer instead ("missing
of_node_put"). And one which I wrongly assumed to be an easy fix but it
turned out already that it needs more iterations ("copy device
properties").

Please pull.

Thanks,

   Wolfram


The following changes since commit c1ae3cfa0e89fa1a7ecc4c99031f5e9ae99d9201:

  Linux 4.11-rc1 (2017-03-05 12:59:56 -0800)

are available in the git repository at:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wsa/linux.git i2c/for-current

for you to fetch changes up to 806dbb20efde821910b5f747befed794077a9109:

  Revert "i2c: copy device properties when using i2c_register_board_info()" (2017-03-09 16:41:48 +0100)

----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Brandt (1):
      i2c: riic: fix restart condition

Dmitry Torokhov (1):
      i2c: copy device properties when using i2c_register_board_info()

Heiner Kallweit (1):
      i2c: meson: fix wrong variable usage in meson_i2c_put_data

Jaedon Shin (1):
      i2c: brcmstb: Fix START and STOP conditions

Javier Martinez Canillas (1):
      i2c: exynos5: Avoid transaction timeouts due TRANSFER_DONE_AUTO not set

Qi Hou (2):
      i2c: add missing of_node_put in i2c_mux_del_adapters
      i2c: add missing of_node_put in i2c_mux_del_adapters

Wolfram Sang (4):
      i2c: m65xx: drop superfluous quirk structure
      Revert "i2c: add missing of_node_put in i2c_mux_del_adapters"
      Merge branch 'i2c-mux/for-current' of https://github.com/peda-r/i2c-mux into i2c/for-current
      Revert "i2c: copy device properties when using i2c_register_board_info()"

Zhangfei Gao (1):
      i2c: designware: add reset interface


with much appreciated quality assurance from
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrzej Hajda (1):
      (Rev.) i2c: exynos5: Avoid transaction timeouts due TRANSFER_DONE_AUTO not set

Andy Shevchenko (1):
      (Rev.) i2c: designware: add reset interface

Jun Gao (1):
      (Test) i2c: m65xx: drop superfluous quirk structure

Ramiro Oliveira (1):
      (Test) i2c: designware: add reset interface

Simon Horman (1):
      (Test) i2c: riic: fix restart condition

Zhang Xiao (2):
      (Rev.) i2c: add missing of_node_put in i2c_mux_del_adapters
      (Rev.) i2c: add missing of_node_put in i2c_mux_del_adapters

 drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-brcmstb.c            | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++------
 drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-core.h    |  1 +
 drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-platdrv.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----
 drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-exynos5.c            |  3 ++-
 drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-meson.c              |  2 +-
 drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mt65xx.c             |  9 ---------
 drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-riic.c               |  6 +++++-
 drivers/i2c/i2c-mux.c                       |  2 ++
 8 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1597999

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 4:33 AM, Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> wrote:
>
> here are some driver bugfixes from I2C. Unusual this time are the two
> reverts. One because I accidently picked a patch from the list which I
> should have pulled from my co-maintainer instead ("missing
> of_node_put"). And one which I wrongly assumed to be an easy fix but it
> turned out already that it needs more iterations ("copy device
> properties").

That first revert looks *entirely* pointless.

You added an extra revert, only to pull in the *exact* same patch. WTF?

Even if you wanted to pull that just to sync with somebody elses tree,
why do the revert? It would have merged fine. You can literally see in
the patches that the files had the exact same content, because the
"index" line ends up being the git ID of the blob.

So all I see is "completely and utterly unnecessary mess in the last 24 hours"

Please stop this kind of stupidity. Now I have that unnecessary revert
with a misleading commit log in my tree, in addition to that stupid
merge that has no explanation and just reinstates the exact same thing
you reverted.

And talking about that merge I will repeat this one more time: merges
are commits too. You had damn well add explanations for what a merge
merges and why it is done.

Because this doesn't explain anything:

    Merge branch 'i2c-mux/for-current' of
https://github.com/peda-r/i2c-mux into i2c/for-current

So either look at my merge messages and try to emulate that "what does
this merge do" model, or just don't do merges.

If you cannot explain a reason for a merge or be bothered to try to
write a commit message, you shouldn't be doing that merge. It really
is that simple.

Particularly don't do merges when they turn a single commit into
*four* commit (original, revert, merge, and alternate) and have bad
explanations for half of those.

So what you could have done is:

 - don't do the pull at all

 - if you want to do the pull to sync up or something, don't do the
revert, but instead make the merge message talk about *why* that merge
was done.

Since the *only* possible reason for that pull seems to have been to
make some git history match up, it damn well matters what the git
history is, and these commits should make sense. As it is, the history
just looks messy with bogus explanations.

                        Linus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1598361

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Linus,

> You added an extra revert, only to pull in the *exact* same patch. WTF?

The patch I reverted had a broken, typoed Signed-off. My rationale was
to have only a proper one, and not two different ones coming from
different trees. Looks like I misjudged, sorry.

> Please stop this kind of stupidity. Now I have that unnecessary revert
> with a misleading commit log in my tree, in addition to that stupid
> merge that has no explanation and just reinstates the exact same thing
> you reverted.

I see your point.

> And talking about that merge I will repeat this one more time: merges
> are commits too. You had damn well add explanations for what a merge
> merges and why it is done.

Understood. Peter joined as co-maintainer kind of recently, and I guess
it shows that I didn't have to pass on merges a lot so far. It is not
that I ignored your preferences for merges (which make total sense to
me), I just missed to check how to properly do it. Will improve!

Regards,

   Wolfram

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web