Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] spi: overhaul davinci spi driver to correct multiple errors

[Kevin Hilman <khilman-1D3HCaltpLuhEniVeURVKkEOCMrvLtNR@public.gmane.org>]

Brian Niebuhr <BNiebuhr-JaPwekKOx1yaMJb+Lgu22Q@public.gmane.org> writes:

>  > > This patch is a significant overhaul of the davinci spi 
>> controller driver
>> > that corrects multiple errors:
>> >
>> > - Eliminate a race condition that exists for slow SPI devices
>> > - Fix DMA transfer length error
>> > - Fix limitations preventing multiple SPI devices on the 
>> same controller
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Brian Niebuhr <bniebuhr-JaPwekKOx1yaMJb+Lgu22Q@public.gmane.org>
>> 
>> The verbose description of the issues addressed from PATCH 0/2 should
>> go here is well so it makes it into the permanent git history.
>
> I can certainly do that.
>  
>> That being said, I think for the sake of reviewing, you're going to
>> need to break this up into reviewable pieces, each having a verbose
>> description of the issues being solved.
>> 
>> There is also a mixture of fixes, enhancements, renames etc.  These
>> should be done as separate patches. 
>> 
>> I know that it's more work to break it up like this, but that's the
>> only way to make a large change like this reviewable by others.
>
> I guess I was hoping that this could be reviewed as if it were a new
> driver submission.  I ended up more or less rewriting all of the
> functional parts of the driver (txrx_bufs(), chipselect(), IRQs and DMA
> callbacks), so it's very difficult to show this as a series of changes.
> I do understand the problem from your perspective, though.  My thought
> was that if the TI folks were willing to look the driver over and they
> gave their blessing, that you would look at it as if it were a
> replacement driver and accept or deny it on that basis.

I'm OK with the approach of considering it as a brand new driver.  The
changelog made me think it was a bunch of fixes/enhancements and not a
re-write.

It should then be made more clear in the changelog that this is
essentially a re-write, and why it is not done in a series of small
changes.

Whichever approach, this will need to worked out between you and the
origial TI authors (Sandeep, Sudahkar) who will need to review/signoff
this replacement.

Kevin