Re: [PATCH V2] drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c: fix brokeness

[Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1658 bytes --]

Hi,

On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 12:06:52PM +0100, Voss, Nikolaus wrote:
> > > > IMHO, you should split this patch into three or more smaller patches.
> > > > You're doing lots of different things in one commit and it'll be a
> > > > pain to bisect should this cause any issues to anyone.
> > >
> > > I didn't split the patch because it is virtually a complete rewrite.
> > > Due to the severe limitations of the old driver, I think it should
> > > replace the old driver.
> > 
> > The final decision is up to Ben and/or Jean but I think we should always have
> > incremental patches, not sure if we should allow big patches for the reasons
> > above.
> 
> Splitting the patch implies the possibility to test each incremental
> change independently, a possibility I don't have with my current setup as
> the old driver didn't work at all for me (for example, my client needs

What didn't work ? You couldn't do any i2c transfer at all ?? Or just
this repeated start didn't work ? If repeated start didn't work, you
could make it work in one patch, then add that context structure to
allow for multiple instances and so on.

> repeated start). I developed and tested the driver in an all or nothing-at-all
> approach. Splitting the patch would be a purely academic exercise for me,
> without any extra value beyond readability (which is admittedly bad now).
> From that point of view, I should maybe submit the patch as a new independent
> driver (although it is a logical replacement for the old one)?

no no, it's the same controller, so the same driver should be used.

I'll let Ben take the final decision here.

-- 
balbi

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]