On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 08:04:33PM +0000, Adrian McMenamin wrote: > Change the maple bus driver to support the visual memory unit driver. > > The maple bus driver currently only supports synchronous polling of attached devices status. These changes allow > the bus to handle asynchronous commands such as block reads and writes. > > Signed-off-by: Adrian McMenamin <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> The ordering of your patch series is a bit vague. Do the changes to the maple bus code need to be made before the VMU patch can be applied? Do the input driver changes have to be made at the same time as the changes to the bus code, or are they ok to leave as a separate patch after the bus changes? All of these seem to have some interdependency issues that haven't been noted at all, making it incredibly difficult to apply incrementally. Your subject for the series also seems to imply you have no idea how they logically structure, and that you simply hacked things up until the point where everything worked, rather than paying attention to logical incremental changes to show how you got from point A to point B without breaking bisection along the way. We do not want to have the tree in a state where bisection is broken, nor do we want to apply huge monolothic changes that are unable to be clearly broken out. At this point the maple bus stuff I am fine with, and I have no real objections to the driver patches either, it is more your methodology or lack thereof that makes dealing with this rather taxing. If you want your patches applied, small incremental patches that don't leave the tree in a broken state are the way to go. Presently I have no idea how to split this series up, and even if the other subsystem folks add their Acked-bys, this will not be going in as one large change. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
