From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759265Ab2HWV3t (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Aug 2012 17:29:49 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]:60534 "EHLO mail-ob0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756045Ab2HWV3o (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Aug 2012 17:29:44 -0400 Message-ID: <5036A0C1.4030209@landley.net> Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 16:29:37 -0500 From: Rob Landley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120714 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Arnd Bergmann CC: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Tony Prisk , Alan Cox , Alessandro Zummo , linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, Russell King , Linus Walleij , Florian Tobias Schandinat , Greg Kroah-Hartman , devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, vt8500-wm8505-linux-kernel@googlegroup.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring , Grant Likely , linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, rtc-linux@googlegroups.com, Stephen Warren , Alan Cox , Mike Turquette Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 3/9] serial: vt8500: Add devicetree support for References: <1345582058-2291-1-git-send-email-linux@prisktech.co.nz> <20120821231255.71a7515a@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <1345617278.7491.4.camel@gitbox> <201208220644.18059.arnd@arndb.de> In-Reply-To: <201208220644.18059.arnd@arndb.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08/22/2012 01:44 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 22 August 2012, Tony Prisk wrote: >> The original patch was very simple, but I revisited it to fix other >> issues and forgot to add the relevant comments. >> >> Port size is changed to fix a problem - WM8505 actually had 6 uart's >> defined in platform data but the vt8500_ports variable was only 4. >> >> I have added devicetree port id support as well. > > If you do multiple things in one driver, you should normally send multiple > patches as well, each with a description why that change is done. > It may seem silly at first to send out a one-line patch next to a 100-line > patch for the same file, but those cases are actually the ones where it's > most important. Think of us poor git-bisect monkeys who have no idea why something broke but can (purely mechanically) figure out which commit did it. If it's a patch that does three unrelated things, we're kinda stuck. Rob -- GNU/Linux isn't: Linux=GPLv2, GNU=GPLv3+, they can't share code. Either it's "mere aggregation", or a license violation. Pick one.