On Tue, 2020-09-29 at 13:56 +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>
> On 12/09/2020 03:07, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> > Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org,
> >
> > Update remove_dma_window() so it can be used to remove DDW with a given
> > property name.
> >
>
> Out of context this seems useless. How about?
> ===
> At the moment pseries stores information about created directly mapped
> DDW window in DIRECT64_PROPNAME. We are going to implement indirect DDW
> window which we need to preserve during kexec so we need another
> property for that.
> ===
>
> Feel free to correct my english :)
Thanks Alexey! It helped a lot me better describing the reasoning
before the change!
> >
> > ret = of_remove_property(np, win);
> > if (ret)
> > pr_warn("%pOF: failed to remove direct window property: %d\n",
> > np, ret);
> > + return 0;
>
>
> You do not test the return code anywhere until 13/14 so I'd say merge
> this one into 13/14, the same comment applies to 12/14. If you do not
> move chunks in 13/14, it is going to be fairly small patch.
I have applied most suggested changes for patches 11,12,13, but on a
single diff it still amounts to 275 lines.
To be honest, after 7 months of sending this patchset (and working on
other stuff), patch 13 looks a lot like to read alone, and merging with
11 & 12 seems to be too much.
Would it be ok to apply the changes and leave them all separated, or as
a mid ground just merging 11 & 12 together?
Adding your suggested text above should be enough to get enough context
for them. I could also say why the return code is left unused for now.
Best regards,
Leonardo Bras
