On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 10:35 PM Vignesh R <vigne...@ti.com> wrote: > > > > On 01-Feb-19 9:18 PM, Jagan Teki wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 11:20 PM Vignesh R <vigne...@ti.com> wrote: > >> > [...] > >>> > >>> This doesn't look good to me, this change is part of 08/20 and now it > >>> removed. better do the same change in 08/20 by adding new file > >>> spi-nor-ids.c > >>> > >> > >> This is intentional. Patch 8-11 clearly shows what all is being sync'd > >> from Kernel and I would like to keep that as is. > >> Merging U-Boot specific changes with those patches does not provide a > >> clean history > >> spi-nor-ids table is moved out of spi-nor-core.c in this patch because > >> we need it for two separate compilation units (spi-nor-tiny and > >> spi-nor-core). > > > > Understand this point, but since it's not a direct commit sync and we > > even add changes wrt u-boot and remove unneeded changes related to > > Linux. > > This is a direct sync. I removed code not related to U-Boot on your > insistence. But, code organization is same as Linux. > I had no intention of splitting ID table into a separate file (see RFC > v1 where it was still in the original file) as there was no other user > of ID table and keeping table in same file allows compiler to carry out > compile time optimizations. > > It's fine to create -ids.c file in the same commit, otherwise > > it is simply adding code and removing the same in following commit > > doesn't suit for bisectable. > > > > Sorry, I do not agree on this.. This patch clearly captures the _need_ > to move ID table out of spi-nor-core.c. Code is being moved out of > spi-nor-core.c to _support_ tiny stack. At no point in this series > bisectablility is broken. > > Redoing patch 8/20 is non trivial and would be painful rework with no > gain. I will have to rework patch 8/20 and 14/20 so as to not break > compilation.
OK. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
