From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758864AbcKCQkr (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Nov 2016 12:40:47 -0400 Received: from us01smtprelay-2.synopsys.com ([198.182.47.9]:34058 "EHLO smtprelay.synopsys.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757970AbcKCQkp (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Nov 2016 12:40:45 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] clocksource: import ARC timer driver To: Daniel Lezcano References: <35bde193-8492-83e0-fb03-8385d8afd007@synopsys.com> <1477954096-770-1-git-send-email-vgupta@synopsys.com> <1477954096-770-10-git-send-email-vgupta@synopsys.com> <20161101204257.GG1506@mai> <188a2912-3369-19a3-86af-cbb154ff7e44@synopsys.com> <20161102001925.GH1506@mai> <2dcf87ce-a278-8ef8-3c8e-3cf7124603c9@synopsys.com> CC: , , , Noam Camus , Newsgroups: gmane.linux.kernel,gmane.linux.kernel.arc From: Vineet Gupta Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 09:40:23 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2dcf87ce-a278-8ef8-3c8e-3cf7124603c9@synopsys.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.10.161.44] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/01/2016 06:03 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote: >>> Because of the git mv you, diff didn't include bulk of driver code which would >>> >> make for bulk of review anyways. So perhaps in v2 I don't do the git mv. OK ? >> > >> > That means I will review and comment existing code. It is not a problem for me >> > if you agree to do the changes. > Sure, the whole point is to make things better as an outcome of review. I have no > issues changing code provided we don't add major performance regressions. So just wondering if I could have some comments on the initial import of driver before I send out a v2. The issue is git mv didn't show bulk of code being moved. Shall I send a v2 with a different ordering so I introduce the driver first, with new headers, new Kconfig items etc and then as a subsequent patch prune those bits from arch/arc/* ? -Vineet From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com (Vineet Gupta) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 09:40:23 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 9/9] clocksource: import ARC timer driver In-Reply-To: <2dcf87ce-a278-8ef8-3c8e-3cf7124603c9@synopsys.com> References: <35bde193-8492-83e0-fb03-8385d8afd007@synopsys.com> <1477954096-770-1-git-send-email-vgupta@synopsys.com> <1477954096-770-10-git-send-email-vgupta@synopsys.com> <20161101204257.GG1506@mai> <188a2912-3369-19a3-86af-cbb154ff7e44@synopsys.com> <20161102001925.GH1506@mai> <2dcf87ce-a278-8ef8-3c8e-3cf7124603c9@synopsys.com> List-ID: Message-ID: To: linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org On 11/01/2016 06:03 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote: >>> Because of the git mv you, diff didn't include bulk of driver code which would >>> >> make for bulk of review anyways. So perhaps in v2 I don't do the git mv. OK ? >> > >> > That means I will review and comment existing code. It is not a problem for me >> > if you agree to do the changes. > Sure, the whole point is to make things better as an outcome of review. I have no > issues changing code provided we don't add major performance regressions. So just wondering if I could have some comments on the initial import of driver before I send out a v2. The issue is git mv didn't show bulk of code being moved. Shall I send a v2 with a different ordering so I introduce the driver first, with new headers, new Kconfig items etc and then as a subsequent patch prune those bits from arch/arc/* ? -Vineet