From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755509Ab1KGMuE (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Nov 2011 07:50:04 -0500 Received: from newsmtp5.atmel.com ([204.2.163.5]:60048 "EHLO sjogate2.atmel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755400Ab1KGMuC (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Nov 2011 07:50:02 -0500 Message-ID: <4EB7D3C0.9070706@atmel.com> Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 13:49:04 +0100 From: Nicolas Ferre Organization: atmel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20111031 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jean Delvare , "Voss, Nikolaus" , 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 Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c: fix brokeness References: <20111107094701.GF4265@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> <20111107100446.GG4265@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> <20111107130432.3309ffd6@endymion.delvare> In-Reply-To: <20111107130432.3309ffd6@endymion.delvare> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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