Re: [PATCH 00/13] arm64: defconfig: Enable missing kconfigs for mt8183-kukui-jacuzzi-juniper

From: "Nícolas F. R. A. Prado" <nfraprado@collabora.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
	kernel@collabora.com,
	AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
	<angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>,
	Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>,
	Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswiler@toradex.com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
	Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] arm64: defconfig: Enable missing kconfigs for mt8183-kukui-jacuzzi-juniper
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2022 09:53:46 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20221109145346.prybmdztzc6imdbq@notapiano> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d9690b4e-30a7-75be-5492-98206c3ccd99@linaro.org>

On Wed, Nov 09, 2022 at 10:08:27AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 09/11/2022 08:28, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 9, 2022, at 00:22, Nícolas F. R. A. Prado wrote:
> >> mt8183-kukui-jacuzzi-juniper is one of the devices set up to run tests
> >> on KernelCI, but several of its drivers are currently disabled in the
> >> defconfig. This series enables all the missing kconfigs on the defconfig
> >> to get everything probing on that machine so that it can be fully tested
> >> by KernelCI.
> > 
> > The changes all look fine, but I would recommend not separating it
> > out into 13 patches when you are doing just one thing here. 
> > 
> > As a general rule, if you keep saying the same things in each
> > patch description, it is usually an indication that they should
> > be combined. Similarly, if you find describing unrelated changes
> > ("also, ..."), that would be an indication that patches should
> > be split up.
> 
> I agree. Descriptions you wrote are useful - they explain why you are
> doing it - but it got all really too detailed, just for defconfigs. One
> commit per one symbol is a bit too much...

Okay, thank you both for the feedback. Given that this is a contentious file,
splitting independent symbols throughout the commits seemed to be more friendly
to possible merge conflicts. But you're right that there's a single overarching
goal for all the changes, so I'll join them all into a single commit as
suggested.

Thanks,
Nícolas

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel