[PATCH 4/4] pxa/spitz: Rework spitz

[Eric Miao]

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dne St 30. června 2010 08:57:57 Eric Miao napsal(a):
>> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Dne Po 28. června 2010 14:19:46 Eric Miao napsal(a):
>> >> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 8:07 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Dne Po 28. června 2010 05:43:12 Eric Miao napsal(a):
>> >> >> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut at gmail.com>
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >> >> > This huge patch mostly shuffles code. The spitz.c file contained
>> >> >> > terrible mess and needed a cleanup, here it is:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > 1) Made every part modular, components are not built in if not
>> >> >> > selected. 2) Removed loads of preprocessor goo, mostly "#ifdef
>> >> >> > MACH_AKITA .... #endif" and similar code. The kernel size will grow
>> >> >> > by a few kb now, but the file is much more readable.
>> >> >> > 3) Reworked SD/CF power setting function and made it reentrant.
>> >> >> > 4) Add ISL6271A regulator support
>> >> >> > 5) Correctly register WM8750
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut at gmail.com>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'd prefer to see separate small patches for this?
>> >> >
>> >> > This is nearly a replacement for the whole file ... maybe we could
>> >> > merge spitz2.c or something ... or do it this way. I understand your
>> >> > point about spliting it into smaller chunks, but I don't see a reason
>> >> > in this case.
>> >>
>> >> I guess the above 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 can be well separated into 5 patches,
>> >> I don't mind merge many patches, but I'd really like to see small and
>> >> consistent changes (make it regression test friendly BTW), ;-)
>> >
>> > I said I get your point, but I don't see the benefit here.
>> > 1) already does most of the rewrite of the file,
>> > 2) only removes the #ifdef MACH_PLAT around MACHINE_START (as the rest
>> > was done in 1) ),
>> > 3) is actually a part of 1) as well
>> > 4) ok, this could be separated out, but I see no benefit
>> > 5) well this is already in if I recall well, but I put it here for
>> > completeness
>>
>> Several of other comments, though:
>>
>> 1. It doesn't look necessary to me to change spitz_* to sharpslc_*. spitz_*
>>    isn't a good prefix, neither is sharpslc_* (think about the corgi
>> series, which is normally called Sharp SL-C7xx). And this is also going to
>> save many unnecessary changes.
>
> I know, but what prefix do you sugest then?

spitz_* is just OK in my POV if there is nothing better, provided it doesn't
introduce too many naming changes.

>>
>> 2. Direct references of spitzscoop[12]_device are still there, which I'd
>>    prefer a cleaner patch for this
>
> I'd prefer rewriting the whole scoop driver and patching the pcmcia driver so
> all this crap can get lot.
>>
>> 3. Others seem to be coding style changes - which can be separated
>
> You're right.
>