> From: Ezequiel Garcia [mailto:ezequiel.garcia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > Hm.. well the problem with that patch is that it's in the middle of an > unrelated series. As I already told you, I think you should have pushed > that as a one-patch fix. Have you seen that suggestion? > Yes, I know.. actually the original patch series, when it started somewhere April (or before) is very different from the version v11 now :-). This devm_ update was added in middle of v6-v7 version change (Most of the changes since first version of this patchset is captured in Cover-letter). > On the other side, you're fixing too many things in that single patch, > for my taste. Maybe I'm not the smarter developer, but going through > that patch is not easy to catch if there's no mistake done. > > Usually if it's possible to split a patch (maintaining consistency) it makes > the reviewing process easier. > If you'd rather send this devm_xxx change yourself that's fine by me, > Ahh nothing like that.. Brian had already reviewed these couple of times And it was only [Patch 04/10] which was last one remaining.. I just said it because this might show up in merge conflict .. or rejects.. > but *please* split the patch in two and write proper commit messages. > > Anyway: this is just a silly change, the important one is the other > nand_scan_ident() fix. Could you help me review that? > > I'm interested in knowing how will that work with 8-bit and 16-bit devices. > -- Yes, I'm just preparing the scenario where BUSWIDTH_AUTO would fail.. unless you do GPMC driver changes also.. same issue was found by Matthieu CASTET (matthieu.castet@xxxxxxxxxx) (please see my other mail) with regards, pekon ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{�������ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
