On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 4:13 AM, Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I agree that it would help to split this patch up. Some cases are trivial, > so they can be put together in one patch. When things get more complex it > makes sense to put it in a separate patch for easier reviewing by the > relevant maintainers. > > This is a very nice cleanup and improves the driver code significantly. > Especially since so many drivers keep copying the same useless code time > and again :-( > > Reducing driver code complexity is a very important goal since that is the > weakest point of many of the existing drivers. But it should be done > carefully of course and in such a manner that people can review it easily. Hello Hans, Thanks for the comments. Review is good. Review *and* actually trying the code is better. If it comes down to Laurent's time being the constraint, I would rather see him spending the time setting up a tree with all his proposed patches and doing a call for testers than cutting up patches so that maintainers can review and guess whether it's not going to cause problems in their particular driver (and I say "guess" here because in some cases it may fail in non-obvious ways that wouldn't be noticed without actually trying it). Devin -- Devin J. Heitmueller - Kernel Labs http://www.kernellabs.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
