Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <dec727cf-486f-8126-34f8-1b1099cec3a1@linaro.org>
References: <20180907100750.14564-1-brgl@bgdev.pl> <da9556fd-0022-8e6a-12b4-cc3babbae5b0@linaro.org>
 <CAMRc=MeT7UP57x+Q-a1ODRCvcGKKj_NSfkBLVQ9O5dhTC1DAYg@mail.gmail.com> <dec727cf-486f-8126-34f8-1b1099cec3a1@linaro.org>
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
Date:   Mon, 10 Sep 2018 16:58:13 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMRc=Mdmi91=2zn-T0B8C2rxVhsXL9cHh7mx8RamYfBpfDjC=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/16] nvmem: rework of the subsystem for non-DT users
To:     Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>
Cc:     "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@kernel.org>,
        David Lechner <david@lechnology.com>,
        Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@bootlin.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>, Alban Bedel <albeu@free.fr>,
        Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@bootlin.com>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>,
        linux-doc <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

2018-09-10 12:02 GMT+02:00 Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>:
>
>
> On 10/09/18 09:24, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>
>> The API changes change so many things, that these series would be
>> incompatible. I can send the series separately but they would be
>> co-dependent anyway. Does it sound good?
>
>
> What am asking is to reorder the patches in a such a way that its easy to
> review.
> ex: Order can be :
> 1> kref and update nvmem_unregister followed by the provider changes.
> 2> Add support to cell tables, cell lookup, notifier
> 3> general cleanup patches  followed by fixes
>
> Current set seems to jump from one thing to other which makes it hard to
> follow and time consuming while review!
>

I would just change that ordering a bit: I think we should fix stuff
that's broken first, so fix the name field of struct nvmem_device,
then the rest as you listed it.

Bart