lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jul]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/6] ARM: tegra: Remove cpuidle drivers
From
Date

On 11/07/2019 18:03, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> 11.07.2019 12:26, Jon Hunter пишет:
>>
>> On 11/07/2019 04:13, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>> Remove the old drivers to replace them cleanly with a new one later on.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>> arch/arm/mach-tegra/Makefile | 13 --
>>> arch/arm/mach-tegra/cpuidle-tegra114.c | 89 -----------
>>> arch/arm/mach-tegra/cpuidle-tegra20.c | 212 -------------------------
>>> arch/arm/mach-tegra/cpuidle-tegra30.c | 132 ---------------
>>> arch/arm/mach-tegra/cpuidle.c | 50 ------
>>> arch/arm/mach-tegra/cpuidle.h | 21 ---
>>> arch/arm/mach-tegra/irq.c | 18 ---
>>> arch/arm/mach-tegra/irq.h | 11 --
>>> arch/arm/mach-tegra/pm.c | 7 -
>>> arch/arm/mach-tegra/pm.h | 1 -
>>> arch/arm/mach-tegra/reset-handler.S | 11 --
>>> arch/arm/mach-tegra/reset.h | 9 +-
>>> arch/arm/mach-tegra/sleep-tegra20.S | 190 +---------------------
>>> arch/arm/mach-tegra/sleep.h | 12 --
>>> arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra.c | 3 -
>>> drivers/soc/tegra/Kconfig | 1 -
>>> include/soc/tegra/cpuidle.h | 4 -
>>> 17 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 779 deletions(-)
>>> delete mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-tegra/cpuidle-tegra114.c
>>> delete mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-tegra/cpuidle-tegra20.c
>>> delete mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-tegra/cpuidle-tegra30.c
>>> delete mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-tegra/cpuidle.c
>>> delete mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-tegra/cpuidle.h
>>> delete mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-tegra/irq.h
>>
>> By removing all the above, it is really hard to review the diff. Is
>> there any way you could first consolidate the cpuidle drivers into say
>> the existing arch/arm/mach-tegra/cpuidle-tegra20.c and then move to
>> drivers/cpuidle?
>
> I'm afraid that it will make reviewing even more difficult because
> everything that is removed here is not returned in the further patches.
> The new driver is based on the older ones, but I wrote it from scratch
> and it's not only looks different, but also works a bit different as you
> may see.
>
> Could you please clarify what exactly makes it hard to review? The diff
> looks pretty clean to me, while squashing everything into existing
> driver should be quite a mess.

Ideally a patch should standalone and can be reviewed by itself.
However, to review this, we need to review patches 1, 2 and 3 at the
same time. So IMO it is not that convenient from a reviewers
perspective. Furthermore, patches 1 and 3 are large and so easy to miss
something.

Is there really no way to have a patch to combined the existing drivers,
then a patch to convert them into the newer rewritten version you have
implemented, then move the driver?

Jon

--
nvpublic

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-07-12 11:41    [W:0.051 / U:8.980 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site