On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 08:01:43AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> I see you're still working on this, but if you do end up going this
> direction eventually, would you mind splitting this into two patches:
> 1) rename the quirk to make it more generic (but not changing any
> behavior), and 2) add the ConnectX devices to the quirk.  That way
> the ConnectX change is smaller and more easily
> understood/reverted/etc.

Sure.  Would it make sense to send (1) as an independent cleanup,
while I'm still working out exactly what (if anything) we need for
(2)?

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson