Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] hwmon: (max6639) Change from pdata to dt configuration

[Naresh Solanki]

Hi Uwe,

On 17-11-2022 02:43 pm, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 02:10:45PM +0530, Naresh Solanki wrote:
> > On 17-11-2022 01:15 pm, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 10:36:15PM +0100, Naresh Solanki wrote:
> > > > max6639_platform_data is not used by any in-kernel driver and does not
> > > > address the MAX6639 fans separately.
> > > > Move to device tree configuration with explicit properties to configure
> > > > each fan.
> > > >
> > > > Non-DT platform can still use this module with its default
> > > > configuration.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Marcello Sylvester Bauer <sylv@xxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Naresh Solanki <Naresh.Solanki@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > What changed here since v5? Please either add a changelog below the
> > > tripple-dash for a new revision, or make sure that all relevant people
> > > get the cover letter.
> > >
> > > It seems you didn't address my comments for v5 :-\
> > Not sure what I missed but did following changes:
> > Removed unused header max6639.h
> > Used dev_err_probe instead,
> > Removed of_pwm_n_cells,
> > if condition for freq_table
> > removed pwm_get_state & instead use pwm->state
> > division/multiplication optimizations,
> > indentation of freq_table,
>
> In the cover letter you just wrote:
>
> | Changes in V6:
> | - Remove unused header file
> | - minor cleanup
>
> which is too short in my eyes. If you wrote instead:
>
> 	Address review feedback by Uwe Kleine-König in patch #3, patches #1 and
> 	#2 unchanged.
>
> This would be much more helpful as people that were already happy with
> v5 wouldn't need to look at the first two patches and I would know that
> you addressed my feedback and would have looked in more detail.
Sure will keep it this way next time.
> What I miss is the most critical part of my feedback, i.e.:
> | My overall impression is that this patch mixes too much things. IMHO it
> | should be split in (at least)
> |
> |  - Add dt support
> |  - Drop platform support
> |  - Add PWM provider support
> |  - Make use of the PWM API
> |
> | maybe also add the 2nd PWM in a separate step.
Sure can do that.
> Best regards
> Uwe
Thanks,
Naresh