Re[2]: [PATCH v3 1/5] rtc: mxc_rtc: Driver rework

[Alexander Shiyan]

> > > > On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 12:40:40PM +0400, Alexander Shiyan wrote:
> > > > > This patch rework mxc_rtc driver.
> > > > > Major changes have been made:
> > > > > - Added second clock support (optional) which permit module functionality.
> > > > > - Implemented support for periodic interrupts.
> > > > > - Some code have been optimized.
> > > > 
> > > > You won't get any further with this if you don't listen to comments.
> > > > 
> > > > We're at v3 and Still this patch combines many totally unrelated changes
> > > > in a single patch. This was noted by Shawn and more detailed by myself.
> > > 
> > > Where Sascha?
> > > v3 is so different than v2. Can you inline your comments in v3?
> 
> I just did that.
> 
> > 
> > At the moment, the driver does not work at all, even for a boards which declared.
> > I do not understand the issue of making changes if we can correct this situation 
> > Please fix me.
> > Once again, now driver not work at all .....
> 
> If the driver is really so broken and ugly that it can't be fixed or
> only with a huge amount of work, then your option would be to replace it
> completely and clearly say why you think it's broken and why we need a
> new driver.
> 
> I don't think that's the case. The driver has it's deficiencies, but
> they can be fixed. Many of your changes are fine, but it's really 5-10
> patches you have thrown into a single patch.
> This is simply not nice to people reviewing it.

The situation is this: I do not use this device in their work, I just wanted to
add the driver to the DT-tree, respectively I had to check if it works.
Well, I got around to it, and the result was a series of patches to achieve the
ultimate goal - RTC DT-node.
The driver has not been updated for a long time and is very bad that my efforts
were in vain verification. On my opinion, any changes it is better than inaction.
Well, leave it to the discretion of the community.
Thanks.

---