ah... got your point... I just split later because Ben wanted the frequency patch as the first one so I decided to let split at last patch to be really optional... so, you suggestion is to revert the order of this two latest patches or the 3? I guess frequency one was already queued right? On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at gmail.com> > wrote: > > I just checked the code and this patch looks right for me. > > it doesn't add any if block... just remove them. > > What am I missing? > > You've added it right in the previous patch ;-) > > Which means if someone tries to understand the history of a given > piece of code with git blame, they now have to jump through these 2 > patches which change nothing and are right following each another. But > in the usual recursive git blame mode you don't see that (or at least > I don't check for that by default), so you end up reading both patches > to make sure you still see where the code is moving around. > > So if you want to split (and I agree that it starts to make sense), > pls split first, then apply hsw changes to the hsw rps code only. > -Daniel > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch > -- Rodrigo Vivi Blog: http://blog.vivi.eng.br -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/attachments/20130326/892711ff/attachment.html>
