On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:09:14AM +0000, Gupta, Pekon wrote: > > 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). > > Well, in order to *avoid* having a patchset flowing for 5 months and 11 revisions you coudl try to keep series small. You could have that single fix merged if you send it alone. Not sure why you insist in *not* doing that. > > 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 Ah, good. In that case you should add "Reviewed-by" if Brian already reviewed it. IMHO, the patch could be cleaner and the commit message could be better. > And it was only [Patch 04/10] which was last one remaining.. Yes, and because you added *another* patch to the series you keep spinning patchset versions. > 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) > OK, let's try to focus in that patch alone, I'd like to move forward. -- Ezequiel García, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android Engineering http://free-electrons.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
