[alsa-devel] [PATCH v3 2/5] soundwire: fix style issues

[Pierre-Louis Bossart]

On 4/30/19 9:54 AM, Vfiinod Koul wrote:
> On 30-04-19, 08:38, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
>> On 4/30/19 3:51 AM, Vinod Koul wrote:
>>> On 15-04-19, 08:09, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart at linux.intel.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>     drivers/soundwire/Kconfig          |   2 +-
>>>>>>     drivers/soundwire/bus.c            |  87 ++++++++--------
>>>>>>     drivers/soundwire/bus.h            |  16 +--
>>>>>>     drivers/soundwire/bus_type.c       |   4 +-
>>>>>>     drivers/soundwire/cadence_master.c |  87 ++++++++--------
>>>>>>     drivers/soundwire/cadence_master.h |  22 ++--
>>>>>>     drivers/soundwire/intel.c          |  87 ++++++++--------
>>>>>>     drivers/soundwire/intel.h          |   4 +-
>>>>>>     drivers/soundwire/intel_init.c     |  12 +--
>>>>>>     drivers/soundwire/mipi_disco.c     | 116 +++++++++++----------
>>>>>>     drivers/soundwire/slave.c          |  10 +-
>>>>>>     drivers/soundwire/stream.c         | 161 +++++++++++++++--------------
>>>>>
>>>>> I would prefer this to be a patch per module. It doesnt help to have a
>>>>> single patch for all the files!
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be great to have cleanup done per logical group, for example
>>>>> typos in a patch, aligns in another etc...
>>>>
>>>> You've got to be kidding. I've never seen people ask for this sort of
>>>> detail.
>>>
>>> Nope this is the way it should be. A patch is patch and which
>>> should do one thing! Even if it is a cleanup one.
>>>
>>> I dislike a patch which touches everything, core, modules, so please
>>> split up. As a said in review it takes guesswork to find why a change
>>> was done, was it whitespace fix, indentation or not, so please split up
>>> based on type of fixes.
>>
>> With all due respect, you are not helping here but rather slowing things
>> down. I've done dozens of cleanups in the ALSA tree and I didn't go in this
>> sort of details.
> 
> Thats fine, it is upto people, everyone has different views, mine is
> different from Takashi's. We all know for example networking has
> different stable and code style rule. That is how it is and I dont think
> we would have one rule for all kernel.
> 
> All I ask is to be able to review and split up accordingly, I guess that
> is a fair request
> 
>> The fact that the series was tagged as Reviewed by Takashi
>> on April 11 and we are still discussing trivial changes tells me the
>> integration model is broken.
> 
> Is it? you got feedback on 15th (that too after my 2 week conf/vacation
> break) and I got called crazy for that, not helping!!
> 
> 
>> It's not just me the patches related to
>> runtime-pm from your own Linaro colleagues posted on March 28 went nowhere
>> either.
> 
> Does it matter it was a Linaro colleague or not, a patch was posted,
> feedback given (similar to cadence one) we agreed that the fix
> is not correct and so patch was not applied. I don't think Srini cried
> over it!
> 
>> Moving forward, I suggest we merge SoundWire-related patches through the
>> sound tree. There will be dependencies in the coming weeks between SOF and
>> SoundWire and it makes no sense to have separate maintainers and make the
>> life of early adopters more complicated than it needs to be. If we have
>> 3-week delays for trivial stuff, I can't imagine what the pace will be when
>> I publish the next 20-odd patches I am still working on, and the code needed
>> for the SoundWire audio device class being standardized as we speak. Things
>> were fine up to now since no one was actually using the code, we are in a
>> different model now.
> 
> I disagree and wont accept it. I dont think you understand that you are
> not the most important person in the whole world, the 20 patches series
> you are cooking would sure be greatest ever, but that is not the point.
> The kernel has a process, you got a feedback, please fix that and post
> v2 rather than cribbing, complaining and calling crazy. The energy would
> have been better spent on fixing the feedback provided.
> 
> Dependencies are _always_ there in kernel development and we know how to
> deal with it. Am sure Takashi, Mark and me can come to reasonable
> agreement, I wouldn't worry about that!
> 
> What we dont do is create new model for your 20 patches.
> 
> And I guess I dont have anything more to say on this thread, so I wont
> bother replying, please feel free to post v2 and I shall review.

Friends have disagreements. We remain friends and I will provide a v2.

I still believe it makes no sense to split the integration of 
SoundWire-related patches in two different trees. The only rationale for 
it might be that SoundWire is a 'bus' than could be used in other areas. 
Except that for now and the foreseeable future (2022+) it's only for 
audio as a replacement of HDaudio, so the pragmatic way of dealing with 
SoundWire is to merge the code through the audio tree. And given that 
the code is not in a usable state at the moment, dealing with the audio 
tree would not have any negative impact on anyone.