Hi Laurent > > which style do you like ? > > 1) It has all 1) 2) 3) in initial patch > > we will add 4) 5) for new feature > > > > 2) It has minimum list/mapping only in initial patch > > we will add necessary 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) for new feature > > > > I don't know which one is good style, but it is good timing to decide it, > > since it can be base style. > > The first option is easier in the sense that we'll need to go through the > pain > of creating all the FN and MARK lists as register to FN mappings only once. > The downside is that there's no chance anyone will review it given how big > the > patch is. If we go for the second option there's a higher chance that the > lists and mappings will be reviewed, but I'm wondering whether it's really > worth it, given the drawback that anyone wanting to add support for a new IP > core will need to go dive in the PFC driver and understand all the internals. > I would thus prefer the first option from a pure selfish way if I don't have > to create the initial PFC patch :-) Please feel free to disagree.
Thanks. I reconsidered this, and yes, I have same opinion. [1/2] patch will be larger in v2, but it will be good for future work. Now, I'm fighting for "readable" [1/2] patch now :P -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
