RE: [PATCH V2] drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c: fix brokeness

[Voss, Nikolaus]

> > > 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.

Splitting the patch implies the possibility to test each incremental
change independently, a possibility I don't have with my current setup as
the old driver didn't work at all for me (for example, my client needs
repeated start). I developed and tested the driver in an all or nothing-at-all
approach. Splitting the patch would be a purely academic exercise for me,
without any extra value beyond readability (which is admittedly bad now).
>From that point of view, I should maybe submit the patch as a new independent
driver (although it is a logical replacement for the old one)?

Niko

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/