MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20161127161238.750ca39a@bbrezillon>
References: <1480183585-592-1-git-send-email-yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
 <1480183585-592-5-git-send-email-yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> <20161127161238.750ca39a@bbrezillon>
From: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 16:16:35 +0900
Message-ID: <CAK7LNATbm0nyh668oMHvsC1vG+SQt6tLhCk1qU+xnRL+5SzRxg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/39] mtd: nand: denali: remove more unused struct members
To: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
        Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@atmel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1984
Lines: 57

Hi Boris,


2016-11-28 0:12 GMT+09:00 Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>:
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 03:05:50 +0900
> Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> wrote:
>
> Please add a description here.
>
> Also, this commit tends to validate my fears: you should have wait for
> the full rework/cleanup to be done before submitting the first round of
> cleanups. Indeed, commit c4ae0977f57d ("mtd: nand: denali: remove unused
> struct member denali_nand_info::idx") was removing one of these unused
> fields, leaving 2 of them behind.

Right.
No difference except that
denali->idx was initialized to zero(, but not referenced).

I could squash the two patches.


> While I like when things I clearly separated in different commits, when
> you push the logic too far, you end up with big series which are not
> necessarily easier to review, and several commits that are achieving
> the same goal...


I must admit that I hurried up in posting the first round.
But, please note I did not ask you to pick it up for v4.10-rc1.
After all, it was your choice whether you picked it soon or
waited until you saw the big picture.
You could have postponed it until v4.11-rc1 if you had wanted.

My idea was, I'd like to get feedback earlier
(especially from Intel engineers).

I fear that I do not reveal anything until I complete my work.
If I am doing wrong in the early patches in my big series,
I might end up with lots of effort to turn around.

I dropped various Intel-specific things,
for example commit c9e025843242 ("mtd: nand: denali: remove
detect_partition_feature()")
removed the whole function I do not understand.
There was possibility that it might be locally used by Intel platforms.

If I had gotten negative comments for removal, I'd have needed more efforts
to not break any old functions.

As a result, nobody was opposed to delete such things.
So, I can confidently continue my work on cleaner and more *stable* base.


-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada