On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 6:38 PM David Gibson <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 08:01:43AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > Hi David, > > > > I see you're still working on this, but if you do end up going this > > direction eventually, would you mind splitting this into two patches: > > 1) rename the quirk to make it more generic (but not changing any > > behavior), and 2) add the ConnectX devices to the quirk. That way > > the ConnectX change is smaller and more easily > > understood/reverted/etc. > > Sure. Would it make sense to send (1) as an independent cleanup, > while I'm still working out exactly what (if anything) we need for > (2)? You could, but I don't think there's really much benefit in doing the first without the second, and I think there is some value in handling both patches at the same time.
