Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] p54: convert to sysdata API

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 12:53:38PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> So I'm really not seeing why you want to make these conversions that
> >> just make code worse.
> >
> > The real goal here was first to actually provide a flexible API to enable
> > more advanced features to be added without having to affect existing
> > callers, as has been done before.
> 
> So I've said this before, and I'll say this one more time:
> 
> It's fine if we make the internal implementation of some generic "load
> data from the filesystem or user" be this kind of new flexible API
> that is internally called "driver_data_request()" or whatever.
> 
> But dammit, that is NOT AN EXCUSE for then making crap patches that
> just replace the existing firmware users.

Works with me.

> If the new interface cannot be wrapped in the old names (and the old
> semantics) the new interface is shit and should never ever go
> anywhere.

There's a few questionable things part of the old API which (UMH lock is one
used even if no UMH is used, the fallback mechanism another) so I've taken out
what I can truly vouch for and its all being shared on the driver_data API.
Extending the old API with yet-more flags is a big concern on my part so will
also recommend new functionality to be focused on the newer API.

> So leave the existing users alone. Concentrate on _only_ the parts
> where  there is actual and real need of new features. Don't try to
> rename or extend current drivers. Don't send out these patches that
> make drivers actively uglier. Really.

Right on.

  Luis