Introducing Atheros AR231x/AR531x WiSoC support

Introducing Atheros AR231x/AR531x WiSoC support

[Sergey Ryazanov]

Hello,

I plan to send several patches for upstream merging, that introduce
support for Atheros AR231x/AR531x WiSoCs. This code developed and
extensively tested in OpenWRT project. And I need some help.

I need to know what is the preferred way to split code on to separate
patches suitable for review and merging? Some kind of howto or article
would be great. Could you recomend something? Should I send a series
as RFC first?

-- 
BR,
Sergey

Re: Introducing Atheros AR231x/AR531x WiSoC support

[John Crispin]

On 18/06/2014 13:46, Sergey Ryazanov wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I plan to send several patches for upstream merging, that
> introduce support for Atheros AR231x/AR531x WiSoCs. This code
> developed and extensively tested in OpenWRT project. And I need
> some help.
> 
> I need to know what is the preferred way to split code on to
> separate patches suitable for review and merging? Some kind of
> howto or article would be great. Could you recomend something?
> Should I send a series as RFC first?
> 

Hi Sergey,

is the code already in a cleaned up state ? are you just missing the
bit where you split it up into patches or is there still dev work that
needs to be done beyond the actual submission process ?

is your code already available somewhere or do you plan to pusht he
owrt support upstream as is ?

	John

Re: Introducing Atheros AR231x/AR531x WiSoC support

[Sergey Ryazanov]

Hi John,

2014-06-18 15:49 GMT+04:00 John Crispin <john@phrozen.org>:
> On 18/06/2014 13:46, Sergey Ryazanov wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I plan to send several patches for upstream merging, that
>> introduce support for Atheros AR231x/AR531x WiSoCs. This code
>> developed and extensively tested in OpenWRT project. And I need
>> some help.
>>
>> I need to know what is the preferred way to split code on to
>> separate patches suitable for review and merging? Some kind of
>> howto or article would be great. Could you recomend something?
>> Should I send a series as RFC first?
>>
>
> Hi Sergey,
>
> is the code already in a cleaned up state ? are you just missing the
> bit where you split it up into patches or is there still dev work that
> needs to be done beyond the actual submission process ?
>
The code is complete and practically stable (no serious changes during
a year). Few days ago I had cleaned all errors and almost all warnings
generated by checkpatch.pl, using a script from 3.10 kernel. I need
some time to clean up flash initialization (remove some odd code), but
this is simple task. So yes, the code itself is almost ready for
submission, but I would like to send it in such manner, in which
review would be as easy as possible.

> is your code already available somewhere or do you plan to pusht he
> owrt support upstream as is ?
I does not do any forks, all changes were made as patches that were
accepted to owrt. Then I plan to rebase the code on to linux-mips.git
and send upstream.

-- 
BR,
Sergey

Re: Introducing Atheros AR231x/AR531x WiSoC support

[John Crispin]

On 18/06/2014 14:51, Sergey Ryazanov wrote:
>> is your code already available somewhere or do you plan to pusht
>> he
>>> owrt support upstream as is ?
> I does not do any forks, all changes were made as patches that
> were accepted to owrt. Then I plan to rebase the code on to
> linux-mips.git and send upstream.



so these are the patches in question ? ->
https://dev.openwrt.org/browser/trunk/target/linux/atheros/patches-3.10

Re: Introducing Atheros AR231x/AR531x WiSoC support

[Sergey Ryazanov]

2014-06-18 17:02 GMT+04:00 John Crispin <john@phrozen.org>:
> On 18/06/2014 14:51, Sergey Ryazanov wrote:
>>> is your code already available somewhere or do you plan to pusht
>>> he
>>>> owrt support upstream as is ?
>> I does not do any forks, all changes were made as patches that
>> were accepted to owrt. Then I plan to rebase the code on to
>> linux-mips.git and send upstream.
>
> so these are the patches in question ? ->
> https://dev.openwrt.org/browser/trunk/target/linux/atheros/patches-3.10
>
Yes. First three of them, other patches should be passed through
appropriate trees: netdev, mtd, etc. Seems that 100-board.patch should
be splitted on to small parts since it contains ~90 Kb (3000 lines) of
code.

-- 
BR,
Sergey