Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756115Ab1FCPr1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Jun 2011 11:47:27 -0400 Received: from mail-pv0-f174.google.com ([74.125.83.174]:63399 "EHLO mail-pv0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752861Ab1FCPr0 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Jun 2011 11:47:26 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20110603152643.GB19344@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net> References: <1306985632-18820-1-git-send-email-shawn.guo@linaro.org> <20110603075201.GE10532@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20110603143406.GA19344@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net> <20110603152643.GB19344@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net> From: Grant Likely Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 09:47:06 -0600 X-Google-Sender-Auth: h_DTbKI4w-cGJxkFYhwnqF4A-H4 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Move plat-mxc gpio driver into drivers/gpio To: Shawn Guo Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux , arnd@arndb.de, patches@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@pengutronix.de, olof@lixom.net, Shawn Guo , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2585 Lines: 66 On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Shawn Guo wrote: > Hi Grant, > > On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 08:55:58AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Shawn Guo wrote: >> > Hi Russell, >> > >> > On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 08:52:01AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 11:33:48AM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote: >> >> > ?arch/arm/plat-mxc/gpio.c ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?| ?361 ------------------- >> >> > ?drivers/gpio/gpio-mxc.c ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? | ?433 +++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> >> > My bad here. ?I should have used 'git diff --stat -M' to show the >> > the following. >> > >> > .../arm/plat-mxc/gpio.c => drivers/gpio/gpio-mxc.c | ?216 +++++++++++++------- >> > >> >> I'm wondering why just moving this driver into drivers/gpio has >> >> resulted in it growing by 72 lines - and it's not clear from the >> >> diffs why that is because of the way they're broken up. >> >> >> > Yes, I agree. ?But when I did something like that to ease the review, >> > people think it's not necessary :) >> > >> > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1143257 >> >> The issue was bisectability: it looked like the build would break >> after applying the first patch. ?The first patch should move the > > Yes, the build would break only if you change Kconfig/Makefile to > actually build it. ?The patch does not enable the build of the driver > in the patch. > >> driver without breaking the build, and then you can follow up with >> driver fixes. ?I don't want to see functional changes mixed in with >> the file move change. >> > Understood. ?Do you want me to resend the gpio-mxs and gpio-mxc patch > sets for that? ?Or can I follow the practice you and Russell > suggested in the future posts? ?I have learnt the lesson. Please repost. > >> > + >> > +static struct platform_driver mxc_gpio_driver = { >> > + ? ? ? .driver ? ? ? ? = { >> > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? .name ? = "gpio-mxc", >> >> .owner = THIS_MODULE, >> > Do I need to re-spin the patch set to fix it, or maintainer (you or > Sascha) can help to fix it up? > > BTW, do you and Sascha get the agreement on which tree the gpio-mxs > and gpio-mxc should go through? It will probably go through my tree because there will be a lot of potentially conflicting GPIO changes going in this cycle. g. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/