Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 9:24 AM Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I'd like some improvement here and there. Let's tackle first the generic parts : >> - patch split >> I'd like the mach-pxa part to be in a separate patch. Looking at your patch, >> that probably means, if I'm right, a split in 4 patches : >> 1) Add the GPIO_LOOKUP entries >> 2) Add the pxamci part to use GPIO tables >> 3) Remove the platform_data in mach-pxa >> 4) Remove the dead code from pxamci >> That will enable easier "Fixes:" tags, and easier maintainance for me and >> Ulf, as the fixes will go either on a patch for his tree or mine, so neither >> of use will have to bother with other conflicts. > > OK usually when I do these manufacturings I take quite big > steps mainly because I do not see that the above will help > bisectability of anything breaks: all possible regressions > will be in patch (2) and all fixes will be to that patch as well > (unless purely syntactic issues). > > But I'm happy to do it any way the PXA maintainers like it, > so sure! Thanks Linux, I appreciate that. >> - the zylonite specific case >> This is the real showstopper here, which could block this conversion and >> deserves your full brain power :) > This is no big deal usually, see e.g. commit > 088413bc0bd5f5fb66ca22a19d66a49d7154ba4c > I'll send a patch. Excellent, rock'n roll. Cheers. -- Robert
