On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 08:38:01AM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > On 4/30/19 3:51 AM, Vinod Koul wrote: > > On 15-04-19, 08:09, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart > > > > > <pierre-louis.boss...@linux.intel.com> > > > > > --- > > > > > drivers/soundwire/Kconfig | 2 +- > > > > > drivers/soundwire/bus.c | 87 ++++++++-------- > > > > > drivers/soundwire/bus.h | 16 +-- > > > > > drivers/soundwire/bus_type.c | 4 +- > > > > > drivers/soundwire/cadence_master.c | 87 ++++++++-------- > > > > > drivers/soundwire/cadence_master.h | 22 ++-- > > > > > drivers/soundwire/intel.c | 87 ++++++++-------- > > > > > drivers/soundwire/intel.h | 4 +- > > > > > drivers/soundwire/intel_init.c | 12 +-- > > > > > drivers/soundwire/mipi_disco.c | 116 +++++++++++---------- > > > > > drivers/soundwire/slave.c | 10 +- > > > > > drivers/soundwire/stream.c | 161 > > > > > +++++++++++++++-------------- > > > > > > > > I would prefer this to be a patch per module. It doesnt help to have a > > > > single patch for all the files! > > > > > > > > It would be great to have cleanup done per logical group, for example > > > > typos in a patch, aligns in another etc... > > > > > > You've got to be kidding. I've never seen people ask for this sort of > > > detail. > > > > Nope this is the way it should be. A patch is patch and which > > should do one thing! Even if it is a cleanup one. > > > > I dislike a patch which touches everything, core, modules, so please > > split up. As a said in review it takes guesswork to find why a change > > was done, was it whitespace fix, indentation or not, so please split up > > based on type of fixes. > > With all due respect, you are not helping here but rather slowing things > down. I've done dozens of cleanups in the ALSA tree and I didn't go in this > sort of details. The fact that the series was tagged as Reviewed by Takashi > on April 11 and we are still discussing trivial changes tells me the > integration model is broken. It's not just me, the patches related to > runtime-pm from your own Linaro colleagues posted on March 28 went nowhere > either.
My patch-bot would reject a patch that tried to do multiple types of different cleanups on the same file(s). Has done so for _years_, this is not a new thing. Remember, maintainer/reviewer time is scarce, engineer time is prolific, we optimize for reviewers, not the people writing the patches. thanks, greg k-h
