Messages in this thread | | | From | "Leo (Hao) Chen" <> | Date | Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:54:50 -0700 | Subject | RE: [PATCH v1 6/6][ARM] new ARM SoC support: BCMRing |
| |
> -----Original Message----- > From: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD [mailto:plagnioj@jcrosoft.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:38 PM > To: Alan Cox > Cc: Leo (Hao) Chen; linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk; > Linux Kernel > Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 6/6][ARM] new ARM SoC support: BCMRing > > On 00:20 Wed 01 Jul , Alan Cox wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:41:01 +0200 > > Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> wrote: > > > > > On 16:30 Fri 26 Jun , Leo (Hao) Chen wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > The last patch. This big patch includes the minimal set > of our CSP (chip support package), which is our OS > independent chip supporting code and headers. All the codes > are under arch/arm/mach-bcmring directory. > > > This patch is unreadable > > > you need > > > 1) Respect the Linux coding Style > > > > For an OS independant set of chip support defines that > usually makes no > > sense > here it's really unreadable > IMHO as you will have to rewrite it to use the kernel API so > it make sense
I am fixing the coding style errors reported by the checkpatch.pl script. So that they should be more readable to kernel developers.
> > > > > 2) to split in small changeset > > > > For a new submission that generally doesn't make much sense > either - not > > for all the new files stuff. > here you have mixed timer, dma, irq, clock, and other new > files in the same > patch, it's really hard to follow the patch. Split it a few > will be easier > to review IMHO >
I am trying to split the patch into smaller patches with block level code.
> Best Regards, > J. >
Thanks for your input,
Leo Chen Software Engineer Broadcom Canada Inc.
| |