Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 7 Nov 2011 13:35:36 +0200 | From | Felipe Balbi <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH V2] drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c: fix brokeness |
| |
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 12:06:52PM +0100, Voss, Nikolaus wrote: > > > > IMHO, you should split this patch into three or more smaller patches. > > > > You're doing lots of different things in one commit and it'll be a > > > > pain to bisect should this cause any issues to anyone. > > > > > > I didn't split the patch because it is virtually a complete rewrite. > > > Due to the severe limitations of the old driver, I think it should > > > replace the old driver. > > > > The final decision is up to Ben and/or Jean but I think we should always have > > incremental patches, not sure if we should allow big patches for the reasons > > above. > > Splitting the patch implies the possibility to test each incremental > change independently, a possibility I don't have with my current setup as > the old driver didn't work at all for me (for example, my client needs
What didn't work ? You couldn't do any i2c transfer at all ?? Or just this repeated start didn't work ? If repeated start didn't work, you could make it work in one patch, then add that context structure to allow for multiple instances and so on.
> repeated start). I developed and tested the driver in an all or nothing-at-all > approach. Splitting the patch would be a purely academic exercise for me, > without any extra value beyond readability (which is admittedly bad now). > From that point of view, I should maybe submit the patch as a new independent > driver (although it is a logical replacement for the old one)?
no no, it's the same controller, so the same driver should be used.
I'll let Ben take the final decision here.
-- balbi [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |