drivers/w1/masters/w1-gpio.c | 62 +++++++++++++++--------------------- 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
A set of ad-hoc cleanups with making driver to be used in e.g., ACPI envionment. Andy Shevchenko (5): w1: gpio: Make use of device properties w1: gpio: Switch to use dev_err_probe() w1: gpio: Use sizeof(*pointer) instead of sizeof(type) w1: gpio: Remove duplicate NULL checks w1: gpio: Don't use "proxy" headers drivers/w1/masters/w1-gpio.c | 62 +++++++++++++++--------------------- 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-) -- 2.43.0.rc1.1.gbec44491f096
Hello Andy, I wonder about your choice of recipients. I would have added Krzysztof to To and me at most to Cc:. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
On 07/03/2024 17:38, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello Andy, > > I wonder about your choice of recipients. I would have added Krzysztof > to To and me at most to Cc:. That's indeed odd (and reminds me Qualcomm proposing wrapper over get_maintainers.pl which on purpose put the maintainers in "To:" and lists in "Cc:") and I imagine people having filters depending on To: and Cc: distinction, but for the record: I don't care. People put it usually wrong, so my filters just choose (To Or Cc). Anyway all the patches will wait till the end of the merge window. Best regards, Krzysztof
On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 09:34:47AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 07/03/2024 17:38, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > Hello Andy, > > > > I wonder about your choice of recipients. I would have added Krzysztof > > to To and me at most to Cc:. > > That's indeed odd (and reminds me Qualcomm proposing wrapper over > get_maintainers.pl which on purpose put the maintainers in "To:" and > lists in "Cc:") and I imagine people having filters depending on To: and > Cc: distinction, but for the record: I don't care. People put it usually > wrong, so my filters just choose (To Or Cc). > > Anyway all the patches will wait till the end of the merge window. Fine by me, thank you! -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 05:38:54PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello Andy, > > I wonder about your choice of recipients. I would have added Krzysztof > to To and me at most to Cc:. It's automatically generated using get_maintainers.pl. See details in the source of the script [1] I'm using. [1]: https://github.com/andy-shev/home-bin-tools/blob/master/ge2maintainer.sh -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
Hello Andy, On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 06:43:56PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 05:38:54PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > I wonder about your choice of recipients. I would have added Krzysztof > > to To and me at most to Cc:. > > It's automatically generated using get_maintainers.pl. > See details in the source of the script [1] I'm using. > > [1]: https://github.com/andy-shev/home-bin-tools/blob/master/ge2maintainer.sh Getting something wrong automatically isn't an excuse for getting it wrong :-) That scripts has: to=$(git show -$count "$COMMIT" | scripts/get_maintainer.pl $OPTS --no-m --no-r) cc=$(git show -$count "$COMMIT" | scripts/get_maintainer.pl $OPTS --no-l) I recommend to swap the values for to and cc here to make sure you have the maintainer in $to and the relevant lists in $cc. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 06:12:46PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 06:43:56PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 05:38:54PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: ... > > > I wonder about your choice of recipients. I would have added Krzysztof > > > to To and me at most to Cc:. > > > > It's automatically generated using get_maintainers.pl. > > See details in the source of the script [1] I'm using. > > > > [1]: https://github.com/andy-shev/home-bin-tools/blob/master/ge2maintainer.sh > > Getting something wrong automatically isn't an excuse for getting it > wrong :-) I'm not sure why you think it's wrong. You worked on the code lately and Git heuristics considered that over threshold of 67%. > That scripts has: > > to=$(git show -$count "$COMMIT" | scripts/get_maintainer.pl $OPTS --no-m --no-r) > cc=$(git show -$count "$COMMIT" | scripts/get_maintainer.pl $OPTS --no-l) > > I recommend to swap the values for to and cc here to make sure you have > the maintainer in $to and the relevant lists in $cc. Hmm... I don't remember why I put it this way. Btw, you are the first one for the entire life cycle of that script (3 years?) who complains about such details... So, patches are welcome! :-) -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
Hello Andy, On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 07:57:01PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 06:12:46PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 06:43:56PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 05:38:54PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > ... > > > > > I wonder about your choice of recipients. I would have added Krzysztof > > > > to To and me at most to Cc:. > > > > > > It's automatically generated using get_maintainers.pl. > > > See details in the source of the script [1] I'm using. > > > > > > [1]: https://github.com/andy-shev/home-bin-tools/blob/master/ge2maintainer.sh > > > > Getting something wrong automatically isn't an excuse for getting it > > wrong :-) > > I'm not sure why you think it's wrong. You worked on the code lately and Git > heuristics considered that over threshold of 67%. When I send a patch I send it "to" the maintainers, because it's them who I want an action from. This also matches the semantic of M: in MAINTAINERS which requests to use these contaces in "To:". > > That scripts has: > > > > to=$(git show -$count "$COMMIT" | scripts/get_maintainer.pl $OPTS --no-m --no-r) > > cc=$(git show -$count "$COMMIT" | scripts/get_maintainer.pl $OPTS --no-l) > > > > I recommend to swap the values for to and cc here to make sure you have > > the maintainer in $to and the relevant lists in $cc. Thinking again, this is wrong. I'd recommend: to=$(git show -$count "$COMMIT" | scripts/get_maintainer.pl $OPTS --no-r --no-l) cc=$(git show -$count "$COMMIT" | scripts/get_maintainer.pl $OPTS --no-m) > Btw, you are the first one for the entire life cycle of that script (3 years?) > who complains about such details... So, patches are welcome! :-) I won't do more than the above hint here. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
On Thu, 07 Mar 2024 16:35:46 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> A set of ad-hoc cleanups with making driver to be used in e.g.,
> ACPI envionment.
>
> Andy Shevchenko (5):
> w1: gpio: Make use of device properties
> w1: gpio: Switch to use dev_err_probe()
> w1: gpio: Use sizeof(*pointer) instead of sizeof(type)
> w1: gpio: Remove duplicate NULL checks
> w1: gpio: Don't use "proxy" headers
>
> [...]
Applied, thanks!
[1/5] w1: gpio: Make use of device properties
https://git.kernel.org/krzk/linux-w1/c/8b39a723ef1fa3737e11832ca11183bbaeda2498
[2/5] w1: gpio: Switch to use dev_err_probe()
https://git.kernel.org/krzk/linux-w1/c/9e085c045868a6a727b3bd0fc7840ccc9e04d3a3
[3/5] w1: gpio: Use sizeof(*pointer) instead of sizeof(type)
https://git.kernel.org/krzk/linux-w1/c/ef2b810e1152d77686032e7dc064ff89b4350b00
[4/5] w1: gpio: Remove duplicate NULL checks
https://git.kernel.org/krzk/linux-w1/c/540d3f15c0aa2baf7e9b48a4e516391c179daab2
[5/5] w1: gpio: Don't use "proxy" headers
https://git.kernel.org/krzk/linux-w1/c/cde37a5bdb0ed2c4c7b86ef688e5fdb697525a57
Best regards,
--
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.