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

[Sergei Shtylyov]

Hello.

On 08-04-2013 6:33, Simon Horman 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?

    OK, but I wonder if you have read my cover letter before looking at the 
patches... I clearly stated that keeping the series bisectable was one of my 
main goals.

> Thanks.

WBR, Sergei