[PATCH 0/8] Reorganize R8A7779/Marzen USB code

[Simon Horman]

On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 02:35:34AM +0400, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> Hello.
> 
> On 04/05/2013 08:40 PM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> 
> >
> >>>    Here's the set of 4 patches against the Simon Horman's
> >>>'renesas.git' repo,
> >>>'renesas-next-20130404v2' tag and the 2 Ether patches I've
> >>>reposted yesterday.
> >>>It was created to fix the shortcomings in the R8A7779/Marzen
> >>>USB platform code
> >>>and R8A7779 USB common PHY driver, and so spans both
> >>>arch/arm/mach-shmobile/
> >>>and drivers/usb/ subtrees (some patches have to touch both subtrees).
> >>>The patches were conceived with the complete bisectability
> >>>goal in mind.
> >
> >>>[1/8] ARM: shmobile:Marzen: move USB EHCI, OHCI, and PHY
> >>>devices to R8A7779 code
> >>>[2/8] ehci-platform: add init() method to platform data
> >>>[3/8] ARM: shmobile: R8A7779: setup EHCI internal buffer
> >>>[4/8] rcar-phy: remove EHCI internal buffer setup
> >>>[5/8] rcar-phy: correct base address
> >>>[6/8] rcar-phy: add platform data
> >>>[7/8] ARM: shmobile: Marzen: pass platform data to USB PHY device
> >>>[8/8] rcar-phy: handle platform data
> >
> >>>    I'm not sure thru which tree this patchset should be
> >>>merged, however it turns
> >>>out that it's too late now to push it thru Felipe Balbi's USB
> >>>tree for 3.10, so
> >>>maybe the patchset can be merged thru Simon's tree with
> >>>Felipe's and Alan
> >>>Stern's ACKs.
> >
> >>I guess you already got request about patch style from Simon.
> >
> >   It's not about style. I tried to keep the series copmpletely
> >bisectable, and granting almost all requests about splitting the
> >patches would have broken the bisection.
> >
> >>When you send v2 patch, could you please add "this patch is
> >>tested on xxxx bard"
> >>on each patch's comment area ?
> >
> >   I'm not sure it's worth doing v2, although in one place I can
> >indeed readily split the patch. All patches were tested on the
> >Marzen board, I forgot to mention that in the cover letter.
> 
>    Well, there's gonna be version 2 now, mainly because Alan Stern
> wasn't content with the patch #2.

When you spin v2 could you note in the change log of each patch that
includes both SoC and board of SoC and river code that the reason for this
is to avoid breaking bisection?

Thanks.