[PATCH v2 0/8] ARM: omap2: GPMC cleanup

[ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com (Ezequiel Garcia)]

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:43:25AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com> [130212 10:29]:
> > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 09:12:53AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > > * Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@ti.com> [130212 08:36]:
> > > > 
> > > > On 02/12/2013 09:18 AM, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> > > > > This patchset is v2 of the small cleanup consisting in:
> > > > >  * mark some functions as 'static' when appropriate
> > > > >  * remove an unused function from gpmc.c
> > > > >  * improve error messages when a CS request fails
> > > > >  * migrate to dev_err and dev_warn
> > > > > 
> > > > > Changelog from v1:
> > > > >  * fix gpmc_cs_reserved to return a boolean instead
> > > > >    of an integer error code
> > > > >  * add a new patch to the patchset cleaning redundant checks
> > > > > 
> > > > > It has been tested on a IGEP v2 board with OneNAND,
> > > > > which means the gpmc-nand patch is tested by compilation only.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Altough these patchset is almost trivial,
> > > > > any feedback or testing is more than welcome.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Ezequiel Garcia (8):
> > > > >   ARM: omap2: gpmc: Mark local scoped functions static
> > > > >   ARM: omap2: gpmc: Remove unused gpmc_round_ns_to_ticks() function
> > > > >   ARM: omap2: gpmc: Fix gpmc_cs_reserved() return value
> > > > >   ARM: omap2: gpmc-nand: Print something useful on CS request failure
> > > > >   ARM: omap2: gpmc-onenand: Print something useful on CS request failure
> > > > >   ARM: omap2: gpmc-onenand: Replace pr_err() with dev_err()
> > > > >   ARM: omap2: gpmc-onenand: Replace printk KERN_ERR with dev_warn()
> > > > >   ARM: omap2: gpmc: Remove redundant chip select out of range check
> > > > > 
> > > > >  arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc-nand.c    |    3 ++-
> > > > >  arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc-onenand.c |    8 +++++---
> > > > >  arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.c         |   27 ++++++---------------------
> > > > >  arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.h         |    7 -------
> > > > >  4 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > Looks good to me. I noticed that for some patches there is no changelog
> > > > and I understand that that is because they are some what trivial
> > > > clean-ups and the subject explains the patch. However, typically it is
> > > > good to have a changelog in the patch no matter how trivial it is. Tony
> > > > may ask you to add a changelog. Otherwise ...
> > > > 
> > > > Reviewed-by: Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@ti.com>
> > > 
> > > Yes please add a changelog.
> > > 
> > 
> > Patches with no changelog have no changelog ;-)
> > 
> > My usual workflow is to re-send a whole series, and only
> > add a changelog to the ones that actually change.
> > For instance, for this patchset, the only one that actually changed
> > is "ARM: omap2: gpmc: Fix gpmc_cs_reserved() return value".
> > 
> > The rest is just the same it was in v1.
> > 
> > I like to do it this way, because I think it keeps the patches
> > together, and I hope I make maintainers life easier; of course,
> > I might be wrong.
> > 
> > So, should I use a different workflow and send only the patches
> > that change with new versions?
> 
> Sorry I think there's a misunderstanding here.. Jon and I mean
> that each patch should have a description in addition to the 
> Subject line even if a trival patch :)
> 

Oops, my bad! I'll re-send adding a description to each patch.

-- 
Ezequiel Garc?a, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android Engineering
http://free-electrons.com