From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pb0-x229.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c01::229]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1VoUsX-0003Zg-R4 for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 05 Dec 2013 09:05:50 +0000 Received: by mail-pb0-f41.google.com with SMTP id jt11so25571189pbb.28 for ; Thu, 05 Dec 2013 01:05:28 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 01:05:23 -0800 From: Brian Norris To: "Gupta, Pekon" Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] optimize and clean-up of OMAP NAND and ELM driver Message-ID: <20131205090523.GD4636@norris.computersforpeace.net> References: <1385374141-10934-1-git-send-email-pekon@ti.com> <20980858CB6D3A4BAE95CA194937D5E73EA510F4@DBDE04.ent.ti.com> <20131205083124.GB4636@norris.computersforpeace.net> <20980858CB6D3A4BAE95CA194937D5E73EA51F9E@DBDE04.ent.ti.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20980858CB6D3A4BAE95CA194937D5E73EA51F9E@DBDE04.ent.ti.com> Cc: linux-mtd , "ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com" , Artem Bityutskiy List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 08:54:34AM +0000, Pekon Gupta wrote: > >From: Brian Norris [mailto:computersforpeace@gmail.com] > > > >I'm sorry to delay this long, but this patch series is still rather > >impenetrable for a third-party reader, and so I really can't give my sign-off. > > > >For one, you don't give very good patch titles; 3 of the 4 have "optimize" in > >the title, when in fact that "optimize" does not mean anything about > >optimization, but rather, "unification", "consolidation", "cleanup", or > >something else entirely, depending on which part of the patch you're talking > >about... which brings me to the next point: > > > I think with all sorts of patches, I feel I have completely re-written the > omap nand driver. After this series and one more, I think there is hardly > any line in omap2.c which is not touched. So, I'm run-out of good titles :-) I understand there is a lot of rewriting. The problem here is just that you're doing too many things in a single patch. > >Patches 1 and 4 are doing much more than one thing. Your commit messages > >-- rather than describing succintly a single change being made -- are a > >description of a list of things that you did, some of which are quite > >independent. > > > Ok I'll first try to break each patch in smaller chunks.. > But this would bloat the number of patches, so I would break this series > into multiple series, hope that's fine ? > - Patch series for chip->ecc.correct() > - Patch series for chip->ecc.calculate() > - Patch series for chip->ecc.hwctl() > - Patch series for ELM Hmm, if there are as many dependencies between patches as I expect, then I think it's best to be a single series still. Too many patches is not really a problem in itself, as long as the patches are reviewable chunks. > >If you need clarification on how you can best rework/resubmit this work, > >please ask. I don't want this series to drag on to version 12+, so let's > >focus on how to get this right now. > > > Agreed, thanks for feedback. > I'll resubmit these patches breaking them into independent versions. > Hopefully then it would be easy to review. Ok, thanks for the effort. Brian