Message ID | 20140205122258.GA13821@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 02:45:05PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 05 February 2014, Shawn Guo wrote: > > Hi arm-soc folks, > > > > This is basically imx-dt-3.14 pull request that missed the 3.14 merge > > window with the pingrp removal series applied on top of. It also > > includes a few additional board support I collected since imx-dt-3.14. > > There will be another round of IMX DT changes for 3.15 later, but this > > one should be the majority. Please pull, thanks. > > Hi Shawn, > > no objections to the stuff you add here, but the way it's organized > is not good. Instead of adding the controversial patches first and > then reverting them, please redo the series so you don't actually > have the patches in the history. I see that you have rebased the > patches on 3.14-rc1 already so there really shouldn't be any cross- > tree dependencies that make it necessary to keep them in. I haven't checked the patches one by one in the pull request, but it probably means that I will have to redo most of the patches, because every single new board dts and addition of device for existing board have new pinctrl data along with them. I will look at the work/effort closer tomorrow. > > Also, because of the pure size of the pull request: > > 105 files changed, 14073 insertions(+), 3127 deletions(-) > > it would be nice to split it up into smaller units. A good > separation would be to have new board support in one pull > request and the changes to existing boards in another one. Ok, I will try. Shawn
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 02:45:05PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 05 February 2014, Shawn Guo wrote: > > Hi arm-soc folks, > > > > This is basically imx-dt-3.14 pull request that missed the 3.14 merge > > window with the pingrp removal series applied on top of. It also > > includes a few additional board support I collected since imx-dt-3.14. > > There will be another round of IMX DT changes for 3.15 later, but this > > one should be the majority. Please pull, thanks. > > Hi Shawn, > > no objections to the stuff you add here, but the way it's organized > is not good. Instead of adding the controversial patches first and > then reverting them, please redo the series so you don't actually > have the patches in the history. I see that you have rebased the > patches on 3.14-rc1 already so there really shouldn't be any cross- > tree dependencies that make it necessary to keep them in. Okay. I just spent the weekend to rebuild the branch and reworked quite a lot of patches to wipe the pingrp stuff from the history. > > Also, because of the pure size of the pull request: > > 105 files changed, 14073 insertions(+), 3127 deletions(-) > > it would be nice to split it up into smaller units. A good > separation would be to have new board support in one pull > request and the changes to existing boards in another one. Some new board support are built on top of the updates to the existing files for purpose like sharing common part. And some updates are added on top of new board support along time goes. So it's hard to make such separation. Considering the amount of imx6 changes these days, I chose to split the branch into two, one for imx6 changes and the other for all the rest. Such separation does not involve too much interdependency. I will send them as the updated pull request shortly. Shawn
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 11:04:30AM +0100, Heiko Stübner wrote: > Hi Shawn, > > Am Mittwoch, 5. Februar 2014, 20:23:01 schrieb Shawn Guo: > > - Make pinctrl nodes board specific to avoid floating board specific > > device tree blob with so many unused pinctrl data. > > can you take a look at "dtc: add ability to make nodes conditional on them > being referenced" [0] to see if it can help to solve the floating pinctrl > problem more generic in the future? Yes, if it gets accepted, we will consider to use it in the future projects. Shawn > [0] http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg303967.html >