From: Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org>
To: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@gmx.de>
Cc: linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org,
Chris Ball <cjb@laptop.org>, Ian Molton <ian@mnementh.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] tmio PM: aggressive clock gating, register layout limitation
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 17:42:52 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110308084251.GB28316@linux-sh.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1103071937010.29543@axis700.grange>
On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 07:47:45PM +0100, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> 5 more patches, that fix high register access on sh-mobile in a correct
> way and implement aggressive clock gating. Marked as RFC because testing
> on non-SDHI platforms is required! The next step would be to add
> runtime-pm to clock gating, but I'm refraining from this for now, because
> similar patches for SDHCI have still not been committed and it seems,
> there are still doubts about the right way to do that.
>
> Patches apply on top of my previous 2 patches from earlier today.
>
I'm a bit confused about this series in general. Patch 1 and 5 are both
marked RFC but 2/3/4 seem to be unrelated and intended for merging,
despite the fact I find the approach itself to be rather suspect. So why
exactly are these all lumped together?
Please do not create patch series that are intentionally muddled. Since
you have two distinct things here with completely different intentions
and you've not explicitly stated whether there's any dependencies between
the two it simply creates a giant mess.
A patch series should be logically structured in some way other than
"here's a bunch of random patches I have pending for this particular
driver", particularly if only parts of it are intended to be merged.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-03-08 8:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-03-07 18:47 [PATCH 0/5] tmio PM: aggressive clock gating, register layout limitation Guennadi Liakhovetski
2011-03-07 18:47 ` [PATCH/RFC 1/5] mmc: tmio: fix power-mode interpretation Guennadi Liakhovetski
2011-03-07 18:47 ` [PATCH 2/5] mmc: tmio: add a flag to prohibit access to registers above 0xff Guennadi Liakhovetski
2011-03-08 3:35 ` Magnus Damm
2011-03-08 7:34 ` Paul Mundt
2011-03-07 18:47 ` [PATCH 3/5] ARM: mach-shmobile: use the new TMIO_MMC_HI_REGS_MISSING flag for SDHI Guennadi Liakhovetski
2011-03-07 18:47 ` [PATCH 4/5] sh: " Guennadi Liakhovetski
2011-03-07 18:48 ` [PATCH/RFC 5/5] mmc: tmio: support aggressive clock gating Guennadi Liakhovetski
2011-03-08 8:42 ` Paul Mundt [this message]
2011-03-08 9:29 ` [PATCH 0/5] tmio PM: aggressive clock gating, register layout limitation Guennadi Liakhovetski
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110308084251.GB28316@linux-sh.org \
--to=lethal@linux-sh.org \
--cc=cjb@laptop.org \
--cc=g.liakhovetski@gmx.de \
--cc=ian@mnementh.co.uk \
--cc=linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-sh@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox