Dear Wolfgang Denk, >> If I add those discrete changes to each driver patch (where it >> might actually belong), the incremental changes to some of >> those files would require all those driver patches to be applied >> in the right order to avoid conflicts. > > Yes, and? What's the problem with that?
None for me. Only for people that want to try out a single (driver) patch. For example at91_gpbr.h is required by two independent patches. Of course, I could base both patches such that each one introduces that file. > Yes,m that's a bad idea. Please re-read the "patches" wiki page. > Commits shall be atomic, and complete. Splitting stuff that > belongstogether is a bad idea, and your first patch that adds unused > stuff will be rejected because of that reason: adding unused stuff. I know that, however it could be argued that adding header files to describe an architectures' hardware is not exactly specific to a driver. Thats why I asked.... Best Regards, Reinhard _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot