On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 12:12 AM Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Jagan, > > Thanks for your hard work. I'm sure everyone in the Rockchip community > is excited about finally having this support in U-Boot. > > On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 12:46, Jagan Teki <jagan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > [..] > > > > > > Was it absolutely necessary to split these changes into 99 commits? I > > > believe at least some of them can be squashed. Reviewing 99 patches > > > isn't feasible. > > > > Squashed, I'm not sure because the patches were created to satisfy the > > bisectability and travis-ci, if you find any please feel to comment. > > About the commit count, I have mentioned in v1, the idea of having > > many commits in one series to have all lpddr4(-related) changes in one > > place and also all the commit has incremental approach of supporting > > rank detection and lpddr4. If require I'm open to sent next versions > > as multiple series, no problem on that. > > > > I strongly agree with Vasily, and I don't think multiple series makes it any > better. > > What's the reason for having two commits for: > > "ram: rk3399: Set lpddr4 MR3" and "ram: rk3399: Set lpddr4 MR12" ? These are individual lpddr4 set rate registers to support, each one is independent on it' own initialization and more over on the whole, it is critical to review. > > Or splitting all the "ram: rk3399: Add ... macro" ? You mean the patches 13 to 20 same like above each one has it's own meaning. It is not meaningful to squash them all. > > What do you loose if you merge the patches into one? > > I must confess I am very surprised, and don't really understand what do you > gain with this excessive split. Normally, when we are adding a new feature, > we normally don't need many patches, so it's the other way around, really. > > Bisectability is about not breaking existing support, but because the feature > is new, normally this is easy. Look, like the whole confusion seems to be because of more patches in one series and the cover-letter states that it support lpddr4. I understand it now, will send the relevant changes in next version accordingly, if require I will squash if any. Jagan. _______________________________________________ Linux-rockchip mailing list Linux-rockchip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
