[PATCH V2 1/2] mtd: move code reading DT specified part probes to the core

[Rafał Miłecki]

On 03/31/2017 01:41 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Rafal,
>
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 12:46:38 +0200
> Rafał Miłecki <zajec5 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> BTW, not sure the intermediate "mtd: physmap_of: use OF helpers
>>>>> for reading strings" patch is really useful, since you move to the
>>>>> common infrastructure here.
>>>>> By following my suggestion you get rid of the dependency you have
>>>>> between this series and patch "mtd: physmap_of: use OF helpers for
>>>>> reading strings".
>>>>
>>>> I learned (the very hard way) MTD people can be really nitpicking so I'm
>>>> sending as simple patches as I can. I see it as the only way for someone from
>>>> OpenWrt/LEDE project to get patch through your review.
>>>
>>> And I learned the hard way that OpenWRT/LEDE developers tend to not
>>> listen to our advices and keep arguing on things that have been proven
>>> to be existing because of bad decision they made at some point in the
>>> project life. So I think we're even :-P.
>>
>> I wish you could sometimes forget what you've learned and review/discuss things
>> without all that negative approach I keep seeing.
>
> I try to stay objective, and if you look back at my review, you'll see
> that I actually agree with most of your changes. So if one person is
> taking it personally it's you, not me.
>
> Now, regarding other contributions, like support for the TRX format, I
> keep thinking that it's badly designed and should not be supported in
> mainline. I clearly expressed my opinion, and I also said I wouldn't
> block the patches if other MTD maintainers were okay to take them (which
> is already a good thing, don't you think?). But don't expect me to say
> "Youhou, let's merge this awesome feature!".
>
> More generally, if you look back at all the contributions OpenWRT/LEDE
> devs made, all uncontroversial features were merged rather quickly. For
> the other ones, each time we tried to come up with alternative
> solutions, but if you don't want to follow these suggestions (or at
> least try them before saying it's impossible), then I think there's
> nothing we can do on our side.

Sounds fair from you, thanks. Please note I'm actually following your
suggestions, just recently I sent RFC init for initramfs which should handle
some of OpenWrt/LEDE hacks in user space as you told us to do this.

https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/744093/


>>>> It's like with this patch: even a simple code move can be questioned. Please
>>>> drop this patchset, I'll resend it after/if I manage to get
>>>> [PATCH] mtd: physmap_of: use OF helpers for reading strings
>>>> accepted.
>>>
>>> But really, what's the point of this patch? It's just a cleanup. You're
>>> not fixing a bug or changing the behavior, and your real objective is
>>> to get support for the linux,part-probe in the core, which will then
>>> allow us to drop the open-coded version you have in physmap_of.c.
>>>
>>> I don't think it deserves an intermediate patch, unless your real
>>> objective is patchcount.
>>
>> OK, I'm going to trust that and see how easily I get can patch your way. I'll
>> resend combined version soon.
>
> Let's wait for a DT review, since this is probably the main blocking
> aspect.

OK.