From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephane Grosjean Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3 v7] can/usb: PEAK-System Technik USB adapters driver core Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 10:29:15 +0100 Message-ID: <4F5092EB.9000303@peak-system.com> References: <1330354431-12974-1-git-send-email-s.grosjean@peak-system.com> <1330354431-12974-2-git-send-email-s.grosjean@peak-system.com> <4F4FB03C.9030003@pengutronix.de> Reply-To: Stephane Grosjean Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail.peak-system.com ([213.157.13.214]:57312 "EHLO mail.peak-system.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758570Ab2CBJ3Z (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Mar 2012 04:29:25 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4F4FB03C.9030003@pengutronix.de> Sender: linux-can-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Marc Kleine-Budde , Oliver Hartkopp Cc: linux-can Mailing List So, to confirm once for all: a serie of patches could define several additions/changes to the same file? > > I asked myself, why this was optimized in this way. IMO adding > > > > 1. PCIEC support > > 2. PCMCIA support > > > > within two patches would be better, right? > Yes: > 1. add PCIEC in Kconfig + .c file changes > 2. add PCMCIA in Kconfig and Makefile + new .c file > diff --git a/drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/Makefile b/drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/Makefile > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..1aefbc8 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/drivers/net/can/usb/peak_usb/Makefile > @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ > +obj-$(CONFIG_CAN_PEAK_USB) += peak_usb.o > +peak_usb-y = pcan_usb_core.o pcan_usb.o pcan_usb_pro.o > Same problem with bisecability here, please fix. -- PEAK-System Technik GmbH, Otto-Roehm-Strasse 69, D-64293 Darmstadt Geschaeftsleitung: A.Gach/U.Wilhelm,St.Nr.:007/241/13586 FA Darmstadt HRB-9183 Darmstadt, Ust.IdNr.:DE 202220078, WEE-Reg.-Nr.: DE39305391 Tel.+49 (0)6151-817320 / Fax:+49 (0)6151-817329, info@peak-system.com