On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 04:49:00PM +0900, Jassi Brar wrote: >> Define more bit definitions in the order of mainline support for the >> SoC. > For changes like this it'd be better if the changelog said something > like "Add register bit definitions for S5PC1xx" - this is all mainline > code so it's much clearer to say that this is adding support for a new > SoC. I thought of adding definitions in 'chronological order of support' in kernel rather than SoC wise. Ok, will divide in two patches. > One other thing I'd suggest is that when constructing a patch series > it'd be better to put the more invasive or controversial changes (like > moving the headers) last. This makes it easer to apply bits of the > series if there is any controversy. I thought I already made that sure. In my opinion, the only controversial patch was 'header-copying' and I couldn't move that any further down the series or other changes without that. _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
