From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:03:34 +0000 Subject: [PATCH v4 0/5] ARM: davinci: re-arrange definitions to have a common davinci header In-Reply-To: References: <1323352528-1207-1-git-send-email-manjunath.hadli@ti.com> Message-ID: <20111212150334.GA20178@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:25:11AM +0000, Nori, Sekhar wrote: > Hi Manju, > > On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 19:25:23, Hadli, Manjunath wrote: > > Re-arrange definitions and remove unnecessary code so that we can > > have a common header for all davinci platforms. This will enable > > us to share defines and enable common routines to be used without > > polluting hardware.h. > > This patch set forms the base for a later set of patches for having > > a common system module base address (DAVINCI_SYSTEM_MODULE_BASE). > > Its easy to dismiss this series as causing "needless churn" by > moving around definitions from header to C files and consolidating > definitions from multiple header files to one. > > You need to do a better job of "selling" this series. The best way > to do that would be to include future patches which benefit from > this series into this series itself. This way, its clear to judge > the relative benefit of the "churn". You gave some examples, but > showing code helps. > > Also, one of the biggest gains from this series is reducing the > pollution in include/mach as asked by Russell in his "pet peaves" > mail. That should find reference in the cover letter and in the > commit text of patch 5/5. Indeed, and I hope it takes into account (at some point) the restart changes.