From: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>
To: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>,
"Voss, Nikolaus" <N.Voss@weinmann.de>,
balbi@ti.com
Cc: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
plagnioj@jcrosoft.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Ben Dooks <ben-linux@fluff.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c: fix brokeness
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 13:49:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4EB7D3C0.9070706@atmel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111107130432.3309ffd6@endymion.delvare>
On 11/07/2011 01:04 PM, Jean Delvare :
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 12:06:52 +0100, Voss, Nikolaus wrote:
>>>>> IMHO, you should split this patch into three or more smaller patches.
>>>>> You're doing lots of different things in one commit and it'll be a
>>>>> pain to bisect should this cause any issues to anyone.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't split the patch because it is virtually a complete rewrite.
>>>> Due to the severe limitations of the old driver, I think it should
>>>> replace the old driver.
>>>
>>> The final decision is up to Ben and/or Jean but I think we should always have
>>> incremental patches, not sure if we should allow big patches for the reasons
>>> above.
>
> The final call is obviously to Ben, not me, as this driver falls under
> his jurisdiction. But for what it's worth, I consider the small-steps
> rule void when it comes to fixing a plain broken driver by almost fully
> rewriting it. The reviewer should really review the resulting code
> rather than the patch. If it makes everybody happier, then killing the
> old code completely first is certainly an option.
I agree with this.
--
Nicolas Ferre
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-11-07 12:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-11-07 9:27 [PATCH V2] drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c: fix brokeness Nikolaus Voss
2011-11-07 9:47 ` Felipe Balbi
2011-11-07 10:01 ` Voss, Nikolaus
2011-11-07 10:04 ` Felipe Balbi
2011-11-07 11:06 ` Voss, Nikolaus
2011-11-07 11:35 ` Felipe Balbi
2011-11-07 12:04 ` Jean Delvare
2011-11-07 12:49 ` Nicolas Ferre [this message]
2011-11-07 16:36 ` Hubert Feurstein
2011-11-08 0:04 ` Ryan Mallon
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=4EB7D3C0.9070706@atmel.com \
--to=nicolas.ferre@atmel.com \
--cc=N.Voss@weinmann.de \
--cc=balbi@ti.com \
--cc=ben-linux@fluff.org \
--cc=khali@linux-fr.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=plagnioj@jcrosoft.com \
/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