From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ezequiel Garcia Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] ARM: omap2: GPMC cleanup Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 15:46:52 -0300 Message-ID: <20130212184651.GA2955@localhost> References: <1360682305-20935-1-git-send-email-ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com> <511A6EA1.80301@ti.com> <20130212171253.GI4801@atomide.com> <20130212182614.GA2574@localhost> <20130212184315.GJ4801@atomide.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from mail.free-electrons.com ([94.23.35.102]:46918 "EHLO mail.free-electrons.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933724Ab3BLSqp (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Feb 2013 13:46:45 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130212184315.GJ4801@atomide.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Tony Lindgren Cc: Jon Hunter , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Felipe Balbi , Afzal Mohammed On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:43:25AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Ezequiel Garcia [130212 10:29]= : > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 09:12:53AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > * Jon Hunter [130212 08:36]: > > > >=20 > > > > On 02/12/2013 09:18 AM, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > > > > > This patchset is v2 of the small cleanup consisting in: > > > > > * mark some functions as 'static' when appropriate > > > > > * remove an unused function from gpmc.c > > > > > * improve error messages when a CS request fails > > > > > * migrate to dev_err and dev_warn > > > > >=20 > > > > > Changelog from v1: > > > > > * fix gpmc_cs_reserved to return a boolean instead > > > > > of an integer error code > > > > > * add a new patch to the patchset cleaning redundant checks > > > > >=20 > > > > > It has been tested on a IGEP v2 board with OneNAND, > > > > > which means the gpmc-nand patch is tested by compilation only= =2E > > > > >=20 > > > > > Altough these patchset is almost trivial, > > > > > any feedback or testing is more than welcome. > > > > >=20 > > > > > Ezequiel Garcia (8): > > > > > ARM: omap2: gpmc: Mark local scoped functions static > > > > > ARM: omap2: gpmc: Remove unused gpmc_round_ns_to_ticks() fu= nction > > > > > ARM: omap2: gpmc: Fix gpmc_cs_reserved() return value > > > > > ARM: omap2: gpmc-nand: Print something useful on CS request= failure > > > > > ARM: omap2: gpmc-onenand: Print something useful on CS requ= est failure > > > > > ARM: omap2: gpmc-onenand: Replace pr_err() with dev_err() > > > > > ARM: omap2: gpmc-onenand: Replace printk KERN_ERR with dev_= warn() > > > > > ARM: omap2: gpmc: Remove redundant chip select out of range= check > > > > >=20 > > > > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc-nand.c | 3 ++- > > > > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc-onenand.c | 8 +++++--- > > > > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.c | 27 ++++++------------= --------- > > > > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.h | 7 ------- > > > > > 4 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-) > > > >=20 > > > > Looks good to me. I noticed that for some patches there is no c= hangelog > > > > and I understand that that is because they are some what trivia= l > > > > clean-ups and the subject explains the patch. However, typicall= y it is > > > > good to have a changelog in the patch no matter how trivial it = is. Tony > > > > may ask you to add a changelog. Otherwise ... > > > >=20 > > > > Reviewed-by: Jon Hunter > > >=20 > > > Yes please add a changelog. > > >=20 > >=20 > > Patches with no changelog have no changelog ;-) > >=20 > > My usual workflow is to re-send a whole series, and only > > add a changelog to the ones that actually change. > > For instance, for this patchset, the only one that actually changed > > is "ARM: omap2: gpmc: Fix gpmc_cs_reserved() return value". > >=20 > > The rest is just the same it was in v1. > >=20 > > I like to do it this way, because I think it keeps the patches > > together, and I hope I make maintainers life easier; of course, > > I might be wrong. > >=20 > > So, should I use a different workflow and send only the patches > > that change with new versions? >=20 > Sorry I think there's a misunderstanding here.. Jon and I mean > that each patch should have a description in addition to the=20 > Subject line even if a trival patch :) >=20 Oops, my bad! I'll re-send adding a description to each patch. --=20 Ezequiel Garc=C3=ADa, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android Engineering http://free-electrons.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com (Ezequiel Garcia) Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 15:46:52 -0300 Subject: [PATCH v2 0/8] ARM: omap2: GPMC cleanup In-Reply-To: <20130212184315.GJ4801@atomide.com> References: <1360682305-20935-1-git-send-email-ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com> <511A6EA1.80301@ti.com> <20130212171253.GI4801@atomide.com> <20130212182614.GA2574@localhost> <20130212184315.GJ4801@atomide.com> Message-ID: <20130212184651.GA2955@localhost> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:43:25AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Ezequiel Garcia [130212 10:29]: > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 09:12:53AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > * Jon Hunter [130212 08:36]: > > > > > > > > On 02/12/2013 09:18 AM, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > > > > > This patchset is v2 of the small cleanup consisting in: > > > > > * mark some functions as 'static' when appropriate > > > > > * remove an unused function from gpmc.c > > > > > * improve error messages when a CS request fails > > > > > * migrate to dev_err and dev_warn > > > > > > > > > > Changelog from v1: > > > > > * fix gpmc_cs_reserved to return a boolean instead > > > > > of an integer error code > > > > > * add a new patch to the patchset cleaning redundant checks > > > > > > > > > > It has been tested on a IGEP v2 board with OneNAND, > > > > > which means the gpmc-nand patch is tested by compilation only. > > > > > > > > > > Altough these patchset is almost trivial, > > > > > any feedback or testing is more than welcome. > > > > > > > > > > Ezequiel Garcia (8): > > > > > ARM: omap2: gpmc: Mark local scoped functions static > > > > > ARM: omap2: gpmc: Remove unused gpmc_round_ns_to_ticks() function > > > > > ARM: omap2: gpmc: Fix gpmc_cs_reserved() return value > > > > > ARM: omap2: gpmc-nand: Print something useful on CS request failure > > > > > ARM: omap2: gpmc-onenand: Print something useful on CS request failure > > > > > ARM: omap2: gpmc-onenand: Replace pr_err() with dev_err() > > > > > ARM: omap2: gpmc-onenand: Replace printk KERN_ERR with dev_warn() > > > > > ARM: omap2: gpmc: Remove redundant chip select out of range check > > > > > > > > > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc-nand.c | 3 ++- > > > > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc-onenand.c | 8 +++++--- > > > > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.c | 27 ++++++--------------------- > > > > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.h | 7 ------- > > > > > 4 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > Looks good to me. I noticed that for some patches there is no changelog > > > > and I understand that that is because they are some what trivial > > > > clean-ups and the subject explains the patch. However, typically it is > > > > good to have a changelog in the patch no matter how trivial it is. Tony > > > > may ask you to add a changelog. Otherwise ... > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Jon Hunter > > > > > > Yes please add a changelog. > > > > > > > Patches with no changelog have no changelog ;-) > > > > My usual workflow is to re-send a whole series, and only > > add a changelog to the ones that actually change. > > For instance, for this patchset, the only one that actually changed > > is "ARM: omap2: gpmc: Fix gpmc_cs_reserved() return value". > > > > The rest is just the same it was in v1. > > > > I like to do it this way, because I think it keeps the patches > > together, and I hope I make maintainers life easier; of course, > > I might be wrong. > > > > So, should I use a different workflow and send only the patches > > that change with new versions? > > Sorry I think there's a misunderstanding here.. Jon and I mean > that each patch should have a description in addition to the > Subject line even if a trival patch :) > Oops, my bad! I'll re-send adding a description to each patch. -- Ezequiel Garc?a, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android Engineering http://free-electrons.com