On 11 June 2013 12:01, Lee Jones <lee.jo...@linaro.org> wrote: >> > 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.
Okay, was not aware of that those were to be merged on it's own. > >> 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! :) Hehe, I stopped reading long before this line. Go ahead, keep them as is then! :-) > >> 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/
