Re: [PATCH, RFC] Extend smc911x to support LAN921x chips

[Peter Korsgaard <jacmet@sunsite.dk>]

>>>>> "Guennadi" == Guennadi Liakhovetski <lg@denx.de> writes:

 Guennadi> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008, Peter Korsgaard wrote:
 >> >>>>> "Guennadi" == Guennadi Liakhovetski <lg@denx.de> writes:
 >> 
 >> Hi,
 >> 
 Guennadi> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008, Peter Korsgaard wrote:
 >> >> >>>>> "Guennadi" == Guennadi Liakhovetski <lg@denx.de> writes:
 >> >> 
 >> >> It looks good, but you should definately split out the arm and cleanup
 >> >> stuff from the new IDs.
 >> 
 Guennadi> You mean remove the new IDs? Why?
 >> 
 >> No, just have them in seperate patches - They are independent of each
 >> other, so no need to put in the same patch.

 Guennadi> No, they are not independent. smc91x.c is comparing the ID
 Guennadi> read from the hardware with the table, which someone
 Guennadi> strangely enough for me put in the header. So, even if one
 Guennadi> were to split them, you would have to make it a patch
 Guennadi> series and make the patch for .c depend on the one for .h
 Guennadi> adding IDs. So, no, these two belong into one patch.

I think we're talking past eachother. The changes in smc911x.c and
smc911x.h to support the new IDs should ofcourse be in the same patch,
but the other changes not - E.G. you end up with a patch series like:

- fix ext phy support
- cleanup debug print
- add 921x support
- pcm037 smc911x support

The first 3 goes to Jeff, and the last one to Russell.

 >> Ahh, the good old break-only-escapes-the-innermost-scope. That's a
 >> good fix, but please send it seperately from the patch adding the new
 >> IDs.

 Guennadi> Ok... it is a simple enough fix, so, one could put them
 Guennadi> both in one patch and be done with them, just explaining
 Guennadi> both in the patch description, but ok, I can make it a
 Guennadi> separate patch too...

I would prefer a seperate patch.

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard