Daniel Ribeiro wrote: > Not really, in this case you are submitting driver(s). > What you should do is to split the code on various patches, and submit > it as a series. eg, one patch for the bus, and another for each sensor, > or something like that. :)
I've currently split the patches up in the following manner sn9c20x: 184k omnivision: 43k micron: 30k hv7131r: 4.4k I could reduce the big one my about another 30k by splitting out the sysfs and debugfs as well which would break down as sn9c20x: 154k sysfs: 20k debugfs: 10k omnivision: 43k micron: 30k hv7131r: 4.4k On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Daniel Ribeiro<[email protected]> wrote: > > Em Qua, 2009-06-03 às 23:48 -0400, Brian Johnson escreveu: >> For submitting the patch. Documentation/SubmittingPatches section 8 >> seems to say that for patches exceeding 40kB(ours is around 250kB) you >> should instead of attaching the patch inline post a link to >> it instead. I would also be inclined myself probably to add an entry >> to the MAINTAINERS file as well. I is not necessary to direct patches >> to this mailing list most of the webcams that have indivdual mainters >> just use the linux-media list as far as i can tell. > > Not really, in this case you are submitting driver(s). > What you should do is to split the code on various patches, and submit > it as a series. eg, one patch for the bus, and another for each sensor, > or something like that. :) > > Big patches are boring to review, doesn't matter if its on a web server > or inlined on the mail. > > -- > Daniel Ribeiro > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Lets make microdia webcams plug'n play, (currently plug'n pray) To post to this group, send email to [email protected] Visit us online https://groups.google.com/group/microdia -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
