From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 124x34x33x190.ap124.ftth.ucom.ne.jp ([124.34.33.190] helo=master.linux-sh.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.69 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1LWQXO-00078k-O3 for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2009 07:26:41 +0000 Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 15:56:32 +0900 From: Paul Mundt To: Adrian McMenamin Subject: Re: [PATCH] sh: maple: add support for Visual Memory Card devices, and make consequential changes to maple input drivers - 2/3 - v5 Message-ID: <20090209065632.GA21980@linux-sh.org> References: <1234122069.6736.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1234123473.6736.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1234123473.6736.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> Cc: linux-sh , Greg KH , Dmitry Torokhov , LKML , MTD , linux-input , dwmw2 List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 08:04:33PM +0000, Adrian McMenamin wrote: > Change the maple bus driver to support the visual memory unit driver. > > The maple bus driver currently only supports synchronous polling of attached devices status. These changes allow > the bus to handle asynchronous commands such as block reads and writes. > > Signed-off-by: Adrian McMenamin The ordering of your patch series is a bit vague. Do the changes to the maple bus code need to be made before the VMU patch can be applied? Do the input driver changes have to be made at the same time as the changes to the bus code, or are they ok to leave as a separate patch after the bus changes? All of these seem to have some interdependency issues that haven't been noted at all, making it incredibly difficult to apply incrementally. Your subject for the series also seems to imply you have no idea how they logically structure, and that you simply hacked things up until the point where everything worked, rather than paying attention to logical incremental changes to show how you got from point A to point B without breaking bisection along the way. We do not want to have the tree in a state where bisection is broken, nor do we want to apply huge monolothic changes that are unable to be clearly broken out. At this point the maple bus stuff I am fine with, and I have no real objections to the driver patches either, it is more your methodology or lack thereof that makes dealing with this rather taxing. If you want your patches applied, small incremental patches that don't leave the tree in a broken state are the way to go. Presently I have no idea how to split this series up, and even if the other subsystem folks add their Acked-bys, this will not be going in as one large change.