From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marek Vasut Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 12:53:20 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 18/18] arm: mx6: cm_fx6: add sata support In-Reply-To: <53DF64CA.1040902@compulab.co.il> References: <1407051288-17324-1-git-send-email-nikita@compulab.co.il> <201408041027.38513.marex@denx.de> <53DF64CA.1040902@compulab.co.il> Message-ID: <201408041253.20289.marex@denx.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Monday, August 04, 2014 at 12:47:38 PM, Igor Grinberg wrote: > On 08/04/14 11:27, Marek Vasut wrote: > > On Monday, August 04, 2014 at 09:23:12 AM, Igor Grinberg wrote: > >> Hi Marek, > >> > >> On 08/03/14 17:10, Marek Vasut wrote: > >>> On Sunday, August 03, 2014 at 09:34:48 AM, Nikita Kiryanov wrote: > >>>> Add support for SATA. > >>>> > >>>> Cc: Igor Grinberg > >>>> Cc: Stefano Babic > >>>> Cc: Tom Rini > >>>> Signed-off-by: Nikita Kiryanov > >>> > >>> I'd just squash all the cf_mx6 patches into the "add cf_mx6 board" > >>> patch. > >> > >> Well, I tend to disagree on this. > >> I find extremely hard to review the "long long squashed into one patch" > >> patches. It is much easier to review small, functionality oriented, > >> patches. > > > > You do have a valid point when it comes to review, all right. There's no > > point in keeping them separate when they're applied though. Tough > > decisions this is. > > When it comes to keeping them separate when applied, I'd disagree also... > Keeping the changes small and functionality oriented helps: > a) bisect-ability and blaming/reverting granularity > b) gives an opportunity to better explain the change in the commit message > c) easier fixing of merge conflicts (if any) > d) learning curve for new developers in the log (as to how to add > features/fix bugs) e) a bit more burden on maintainers ;-) I cannot disagree with neither ;-) Let's go with the split approach then Best regards, Marek Vasut