On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 09:58:19PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Geert, > > On Tuesday 10 Jan 2017 16:07:01 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 8:31 PM, Jacopo Mondi wrote: > > > From: Magnus Damm <damm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > This is a squash of several commits, adding peripherals groups > > > configuration to r7s72100 device tree, and enabling some of them on > > > Genmai evaluation board > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jacopo Mondi <jacopo+renesas@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Thanks for the rework! > > > > > arch/arm/boot/dts/r7s72100-genmai.dts | 51 ++++++++++++ > > > arch/arm/boot/dts/r7s72100.dtsi | 151 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > This path should be split in multiple parts: > > - Add the pfc node to r7s72100.dtsi, > > - Add the gpio nodes to r7s72100.dtsi, > > - 4 patches for r7s72100-genmai.dts, adding support for LEDs, SCIF, > > Ethernet, and SPI. > > I can agree about the .dtsi/.dts split, but isn't this going a bit overboard ? I would like the split so that different patches touch different files to be made. I am willing to be flexible regarding adding more than one IP block in a single patch if the patches would otherwise be very small and unlikely to lead to breakage. >From my PoV a key motivation for splitting things up is to make it easier to selectively revert or backport individual features. I personally don't have much cause to do either on a fine-grained basis of late. So I'm happy to consider being more flexible with regards to patch granularity.
