From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Reinhard Meyer <u-boot@emk-elektronik.de>
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 19:05:19 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot] Make preparatory patches that initially have no effect?
In-Reply-To: <20100814143009.A18461606A5@gemini.denx.de>
References: <4C665CB9.2040406@emk-elektronik.de>
	<20100814143009.A18461606A5@gemini.denx.de>
Message-ID: <4C66CCCF.9080303@emk-elektronik.de>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Dear Wolfgang Denk,
>> If I add those discrete changes to each driver patch (where it
>> might actually belong), the incremental changes to some of
>> those files would require all those driver patches to be applied
>> in the right order to avoid conflicts.
> 
> Yes, and? What's the problem with that?

None for me. Only for people that want to try out a single (driver)
patch.

For example at91_gpbr.h is required by two independent patches.
Of course, I could base both patches such that each one introduces
that file.

> Yes,m that's a bad idea. Please re-read the "patches" wiki page.
> Commits shall be atomic, and complete. Splitting stuff that
> belongstogether is a bad idea, and your first patch that adds unused
> stuff will be rejected because of that reason: adding unused stuff.

I know that, however it could be argued that adding header files to
describe an architectures' hardware is not exactly specific to a driver.
Thats why I asked....

Best Regards,
Reinhard