On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 03:49:19PM +0800, Peter Chen wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 09:44:09AM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:10:43AM +0800, Peter Chen wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:46:49AM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 05:03:18PM +0800, Peter Chen wrote:
> > > > > Let the common struct usb_gadget own it.
> > > > >
> > > > > CC: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > CC: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > CC: Li Yang <leoli@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > CC: Roland Stigge <stigge@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > CC: Yu Xu <yuxu@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > CC: Chao Xie <chao.xie@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > CC: Eric Miao <eric.y.miao@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > CC: Ben Dooks <ben-linux@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Chen <peter.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > you need to split this patch, should be something like below:
> > > >
> > > > for_each_driver() {
> > > > initialize gadget->vbus_active (don't remove private method)
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > add vbus_active support to udc-core
> > > >
> > > > for_each_driver() {
> > > > remove driver's private vbus_active method
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > you need one patch per driver so it's easy to review and ack.
> > >
> > > Eg, If I changed 10 udc drivers, I need
> > > 1(add vbus_active to struct usb_gadget) + 10 + 1 + 10 = 22 patches?
> >
> > in order to keep possible regressions localized to a single driver.
> > Imagine if you cause a regression on omap_udc, then we decide to revert
> > your patch. All other drivers, which can be correct will loose the
> > change as well.
>
> I agree, why we can't merge below two steps into one step, if there
> are problems for single driver, we also need to revert one patch.
indeed, that might be doable and might look better.
--
balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
