From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rob Landley Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 21:29:37 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 3/9] serial: vt8500: Add devicetree support for Message-Id: <5036A0C1.4030209@landley.net> List-Id: References: <1345582058-2291-1-git-send-email-linux@prisktech.co.nz> <20120821231255.71a7515a@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <1345617278.7491.4.camel@gitbox> <201208220644.18059.arnd@arndb.de> In-Reply-To: <201208220644.18059.arnd@arndb.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On 08/22/2012 01:44 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 22 August 2012, Tony Prisk wrote: >> The original patch was very simple, but I revisited it to fix other >> issues and forgot to add the relevant comments. >> >> Port size is changed to fix a problem - WM8505 actually had 6 uart's >> defined in platform data but the vt8500_ports variable was only 4. >> >> I have added devicetree port id support as well. > > If you do multiple things in one driver, you should normally send multiple > patches as well, each with a description why that change is done. > It may seem silly at first to send out a one-line patch next to a 100-line > patch for the same file, but those cases are actually the ones where it's > most important. Think of us poor git-bisect monkeys who have no idea why something broke but can (purely mechanically) figure out which commit did it. If it's a patch that does three unrelated things, we're kinda stuck. Rob -- GNU/Linux isn't: Linux=GPLv2, GNU=GPLv3+, they can't share code. Either it's "mere aggregation", or a license violation. Pick one.