> > Nice and simple implementation using standard Clk APIs. > Hi Lee, > > I may be a bit tired, but I am having a bit hard to follow the steps > taken in this patch set. :-) > > I should of course tell you why: > 1. You start out by adding DT definitions in the DT files, should that > not be done as the final step, after the DT support has been added in > ux500 clk driver?
No, let me tell you why. ;) a) The DT definitions will be going in via a separate tree, so it doesn't really matter where they are placed in _this_ patchset. and b) they will remain completely dormant until they are backed up with driver bindings, so there is no harm in putting them in first. > 2. Moreover, I think it would be enough to group the definitions > patches into one patch or at least significant fewer. Same feeling > about the patches were you remove the AUXDATA, this would simplify the > review for me. It's generally accepted that lots of lines of code split over a greater number of patches (so long as they are in consistent groups of functionality) are easier to review and thus have a greater chance of acceptance. It also makes things like reverting easier and bisecting more precise (rather than finding a big patch using bisect, then having to complete a manual mini-bisect to find the offending change. Arnd provides the maths for calculating the ease of upstreaming a patch, which he calls 'weight' (NB: this is from memory, it might be a little off): (patch_weight * patch_weight) * patch_count = delta_weight So if we had a 100 lines split over 2 patches, it would be: (50 * 50) * 2 = 5000 Whereas if we split those lines over 4 patches we would see: (25 * 25) * 4 = 1000 Thus, by this convention it would (generally) considered to be twice as difficult to upstream - at least that's the theory. There is a more extravagant formula for calculating how difficult it would be to upstream an entire tree of delta if a) all patches were contained on a single branch compared to b) if patches were split into topic branches. Something like: ((patch_weight * patch_weight) * patch_count) * (patch_weight * patch_weight) * patch_count)) * branch_count = delta_weight So following on from the example above and placing 100 lines over 2 patches on 1 branch you would get: (((25 * 25) * 4) * (25 * 25) * 4) * 1 = 6250000 Whereas if you spread the patches over two branches you'd have: (((25 * 25) * 2) * (25 * 25) * 2) * 2 = 3125000 Obviously the branch number comparison works better with the larger numbers you'd expect to find in a typical downstream BSP, but you get the idea. </tangent> ... whoops, sorry! :) > 3. The rest will be commented per patch. > > Kind regards > Ulf Hansson > > > > > arch/arm/boot/dts/dbx5x0.dtsi | 94 > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > > arch/arm/boot/dts/snowball.dts | 3 ++- > > arch/arm/mach-ux500/cpu-db8500.c | 36 +-------------------------- > > drivers/clk/ux500/u8500_clk.c | 154 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > > 4 files changed, 249 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-) > > > > -- Lee Jones Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
