From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wolfram Sang Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 16:48:12 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] ARM: shmobile: r8a7790: add IIC(B) clocks to dtsi Message-Id: <20140325164812.GE6374@katana> MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="XuV1QlJbYrcVoo+x" List-Id: References: <1394573078-20767-1-git-send-email-wsa@the-dreams.de> <1394573078-20767-5-git-send-email-wsa@the-dreams.de> In-Reply-To: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org --XuV1QlJbYrcVoo+x Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 08:05:26PM +0900, Magnus Damm wrote: > Hi Wolfram, >=20 > On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 6:24 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > From: Wolfram Sang > > > > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang > > --- > > Note: Adding clocks whilst keeping the current sorting is very likely to > > break a previously working clock IMO. Imagine adding PCIEC clock inbetw= een IIC0 > > and IIC1 here. Adding chronologically and grouped by similar function b= locks is > > easier to track. An example addition could then look like: > > > > R8A7790_CLK_TPU0 > > R8A7790_CLK_SDHI3 R8A7790_CLK_SDHI2 R8A7790_CLK_SDHI1 R8A7790_C= LK_SDHI0 > > R8A7790_CLK_MMCIF1 R8A7790_CLK_MMCIF0 > > R8A7790_CLK_CMT1 > > R8A7790_CLK_IIC2 R8A7790_CLK_IIC1 R8A7790_CLK_IIC0 > > + R8A7790_CLK_PCIEC >=20 > Can you please care to explain a bit more about why you see a risk > here? Is it a risk for typo or something else? The risk here is if you put something in the "middle" then there is a chance you might be off, and, for example, mix up parent clocks. Especially when you need to reformat paragraphs because of too long lines. Yeah, all this can be avoided by careful review, but this review really needs to be careful. > It looks to me that this is just a matter about adding the entry at > the right position in several places. Yes. IMO adding it with the pattern I sketched above will make it a piece of cake since the diff is a lot more simple than the patch I originally submitted. That being said, I will keep the current sorting for consistency reasons but I personally made up my mind ;) --XuV1QlJbYrcVoo+x Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJTMbNLAAoJEBQN5MwUoCm2McgP/0aYsiHYjWjgYC9DZvxX0le6 tbF6IZjpRlbeEJR8v76oXTISmF7zlYMy5j3bhdm/wrqdI7YTIYOqa94qKKEnAitg fYqjCJkfRkqDpKk3icObJUC3ev0a3OwHk9gOM+mM3NTnVsHB+BiW90vBUdaNuvj6 d5s7cXqc7O3FAfVszBQ+lwD0EgBZ21QIqe7hRRoXrwZKMa7ZslFeWsC+bJD1ie0W 7Q3NZDsyM0ihvc2xyDa2ehXxifaKZOiDDAUbZ3WoVWEzt3V47jQVBRjX6pc1CZqm Oab6PYoKiROh+fzwWZn6PMAdYFJgmCnOb/8IzB9W9mV5IrIa7euHD2qDuQBt4rH7 FyXHsLRJgmepl4/H2T/BtudOmSH/QzWPdjvrPm68Kl+C/9rXlH617cJcczjBxSO3 /2SCNs6Kq1iNwm01dBRWIms80Z1A9NxFMtZW2e9BN0SH7FNFeGLKrMbIlgP/xSTm A6k8ECeJcly98n+SruPXq0KwbVyX8jlatiLmSxk3lHxYTYKoNQVGR8lNyIdvI62s RFaRnvxgQpFyfEo7Qhlok/Izef9I7Hj74BarILGzMl3ywyfN0oD0+zHbe7tvs15T LX7rJOCnJ/hT4hG9NKjjUhtbHo45bpG/DhkPP+NIhiuCNu6dggks4WOD80NA1nGu jjCIR1ZLqO7D1pZn2EFt =NlP+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --XuV1QlJbYrcVoo+x--