Hi Andrew, Andrew Lunn <and...@lunn.ch> writes:
> This seems to be more than renaming a few functions. There looks to be > real changes here. I think these changes should be split out into a > separate patch with an explanation what is being changed. Keep this > patch for plain renames. > > It would also be easier to review if the patch just moved the code, no > changes. Then have patches which clean up the API. It is hard to see > what is move and what is cleanup. Plain move needs little review, > cleanup needs more review. With the current patch, it is hard to see > which is which. I understand your concerns about that. I've started that way (just moving code) but this ended up messier because of the naming convention which would required renaming and more diffstats. I found it actually easier to review the new code at once by reading all the addition block. Note that we are very close from 4.10, so unless there is a major issue in the patchset, I'd prefer not to respin new versions. I'd gladly send cosmetics fixup later though. I'm waiting for this patchset to land in net-next to send the second one ready for cross-chip bridging in DSA. Thanks, Vivien