Hello, On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 18:41:55, A. Porodko wrote: > Hi, > > >>> This should actually merge through MFD subsystem. > >>> I take it you are only looking for a review here. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> Sorry. I don't quite understand what you mean here. I thought I made it > >> a MFD driver. > >> > > > > The path for this driver to reach Linus's kernel is not through > > Kevin's tree (DaVinci GIT tree), but through MFD subsystem tree. > > Have a look at MAINTANIERS file for information about who > > maintains the mfd tree. Kevin only sends arch/arm/mach-davinci/* > > changes to Linus. > > > > > What shall I do then?
Separate your patch based on parts which affect arch/arm/mach-davinci/* and those that affect drivers/mfd/* Send the patch that affect drivers/mfd/* to MFD maintainer Samuel Ortiz <[email protected]>. Send the arch/arm/mach-davinci/* part to Kevin Hilman. CC: [email protected] on all patches. Address comments until both maintainers are satisfied. Simple :) > >> > >> Seems some time ago the file was dm355evm, obviously it was renamed later. > >> You are right this driver is mostly a cut and paste of dm355 evm, but > >> the thing is > >> 1. This neuros osd2 board is a descendant of dm6446 evm board not dm355 > >> and I don't know how good it is to mix both in one file. > >> > > > > IMO, as long as the code still makes sense, we can mix them > > in one file. > > > > > I can do it. Shall this code keep the name dm355evm_msp then? May be it > shall be renamed to davinci_msp? I would keep file rename to the last. The code needs to fit in first. > > >> 3. Also having routines named as dm355evm_msp in board which is actually > >> OSD2 can confuse, don't you agree? Otherwise the whole dm355evm_msp code > >> would be an entire #ifdef on each line. So I think it would be better to > >> keep code separately. > >> > > > > Having routine names which match board names is nice > > but not necessary for functionality. This happens a > > lot of times when it is impossible to guess what the > > file will end up getting used into when it is first > > written. You could also first update the code to use > > some generic naming before adding osd2 support. > > > > > Is it alright to rename routines and files which I don't actually > maintain, but just add a piece of code? > If so, it's OK with me as long it satisfies maintainers. This change should be low risk. You could post the patch and request an Ack from those who actually have a DM355 EVM (in case you don't have it). Again, I would keep renames to the last, but opinions could differ here. Thanks, Sekhar _______________________________________________ Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list [email protected] http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
