From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linuxzsc@gmail.com (Richard Zhao) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:14:42 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] i2c: imx: check busy bit when START/STOP In-Reply-To: <20090929142440.GF32420@sirena.org.uk> References: <4e090d470909290441i7016c4f4g9a929d78838f9b7@mail.gmail.com> <20090929132505.GM27039@pengutronix.de> <4e090d470909290654r6fb36cb4h505662c7cb84b1f8@mail.gmail.com> <20090929142440.GF32420@sirena.org.uk> Message-ID: <4e090d470909290814v292487f4l2ff3323bec145def@mail.gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 10:24 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 09:54:05PM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Sascha Hauer wrote: > >> > I think it's generally a good idea to start/stop the clocks when needed >> > as you do here. It should be an extra patch though. > >> You think I should split the patch to three: IBB, reg_dump, clk dis/en ? >> The idea is good, more easy to revert. but sometimes, I think it make >> small things too complex. > > Keeping small things simple is half the reason for doing this - it's not > just bisection, it's also the fact that it's much easier to read and > understand a small patch that does one thing than it is to do the same > with a large patch which makes several unrelated changes. ?When several > changes are lumped in together it's harder to see the complete version > of any one change in isolation and more effort is required to work out > which goals are being accomplished with any given chunk of the patch. > Thank you all! If you don't have other comments, I will split the patch and send out again tomorrow. Thanks Richard