From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754685Ab1KGLfn (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Nov 2011 06:35:43 -0500 Received: from na3sys009aog109.obsmtp.com ([74.125.149.201]:45125 "EHLO na3sys009aog109.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753311Ab1KGLfl (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Nov 2011 06:35:41 -0500 Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 13:35:36 +0200 From: Felipe Balbi To: "Voss, Nikolaus" Cc: "'balbi@ti.com'" , "'linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org'" <'linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org'>, "'linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org'" <'linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org'>, "'nicolas.ferre@atmel.com'" , "'plagnioj@jcrosoft.com'" , "'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'" , "'ben-linux@fluff.org'" Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c: fix brokeness Message-ID: <20111107113535.GD19489@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> Reply-To: balbi@ti.com References: <20111107094701.GF4265@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> <20111107100446.GG4265@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="3Gf/FFewwPeBMqCJ" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --3Gf/FFewwPeBMqCJ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 patche= s. > > > > 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. > >=20 > > The final decision is up to Ben and/or Jean but I think we should alway= s have > > incremental patches, not sure if we should allow big patches for the re= asons > > above. >=20 > 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-a= t-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 indepen= dent > 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. --=20 balbi --3Gf/FFewwPeBMqCJ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJOt8KHAAoJEIaOsuA1yqREwh8P/2Jz1jk/RSAc+EbFu+j/ILEz jmvtVThWljZTgl9deDhYvxXcnqcoLEPVtOy94oh96Fl3Xl2YwxEVFYXQ9uNT6YNy 8dRP2sWZAdH/4Lc2n1G+007vyC7fVPQC4OvH12+pPK/vV2AagVRIbAETUKSQtE1p gbJ/I09bvsS7zI3lM1FGuU4obVtx0uvu+yv1i9ur1vq2jes3jkQXtgt+wi70qjpm CGsa0VcRkLvqc55lUkgdTVTIjBgubMvWHC6EEfhbH3nXfVZpXBM4K3EDV3bgySxY d4PqCThOrz044DHykTMW2tZRymrQ9J3YKhSbYcbPcJFIyeL6229aJBlHsEWiY9eI TbFrncYRmdBWjvsqxm2kUp05/8Q7pDSWy4H8XyKJw2/oPmJTJ5a+R4IAo+aS2ZRE Pld7rlnKYmFKpR2FZuIuwKpwMtNRLEcXyRsefi0WgRnu5sKMBqXFqOJBLq/8rzxi MZDTrBrt+vnXokdVZt6tNxWQddfqd7HQDprZ8nZqNVrrJNwwiMWK/5EwTbaotnUo 2BMNHnL0R8ocaINNV4sDuotqDZx1sp2nWy4Uit0dwJ1apjtHlIlgXNKWy8Us8qtB G+hP+FxPwHiYxQQb+hoqDDwJBlShaF9yHDH4zDVvhTWwUcGErFAa/2jk3XAGsafG Ai//V6sei59fS3so1fcH =5OOq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --3Gf/FFewwPeBMqCJ--