Jagan,
On 07/04/2019 06:54 PM, Jagan Teki wrote: > Hi Kever, > > On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 3:57 PM Kever Yang <kever.y...@rock-chips.com> wrote: >> Jagan, >> >> >> On 06/26/2019 06:22 PM, Jagan Teki wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 12:12 AM Ezequiel Garcia >> <ezequ...@vanguardiasur.com.ar> wrote: >> >> Hi Jagan, >> >> Thanks for your hard work. I'm sure everyone in the Rockchip community >> is excited about finally having this support in U-Boot. >> >> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 12:46, Jagan Teki <ja...@amarulasolutions.com> wrote: >> [..] >> >> Was it absolutely necessary to split these changes into 99 commits? I >> believe at least some of them can be squashed. Reviewing 99 patches >> isn't feasible. >> >> Squashed, I'm not sure because the patches were created to satisfy the >> bisectability and travis-ci, if you find any please feel to comment. >> About the commit count, I have mentioned in v1, the idea of having >> many commits in one series to have all lpddr4(-related) changes in one >> place and also all the commit has incremental approach of supporting >> rank detection and lpddr4. If require I'm open to sent next versions >> as multiple series, no problem on that. >> >> I strongly agree with Vasily, and I don't think multiple series makes it any >> better. >> >> What's the reason for having two commits for: >> >> "ram: rk3399: Set lpddr4 MR3" and "ram: rk3399: Set lpddr4 MR12" ? >> >> These are individual lpddr4 set rate registers to support, each one is >> independent on it' own initialization and more over on the whole, it >> is critical to review. >> >> Or splitting all the "ram: rk3399: Add ... macro" ? >> >> You mean the patches 13 to 20 same like above each one has it's own >> meaning. It is not meaningful to squash them all. >> >> >> 99 patches is really too much, but I'm not sure how smaller it can be. >> Reference to kernel document, it suggest not more than 15 at one time: > Agreed. > >> NO!!!! No more huge patch bombs to linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org people! >> <https://lkml.org/lkml/2005/7/11/336> But please note that I don't think >> split this into different series make any sense. But maybe you can try to >> squash as much as you can. eg. the update for dram_all_config may able to >> squash into one patch, >> and some new MACRO and its reference code may be able to squash. >> So it depends on how you define about _logical change_. >> I'm not sure if this have happen in the history of U-Boot mailing list, but >> I think this big patch set will be complained by many people if this is send >> to >> kernel. > I don't mean to split the lpddr4 changes into multiple series. what > I'm trying to say here is this series has patches that support code > warnings, rank detection. Since each of them has it own identical > features, I'm planning to send them first. and will squash what it > require on lpddr4. > > Will that be okay for you? That's OK for me, just need to let people know the patch set dependency. Thanks, - Kever > _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
