Hi Tomas, On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Tomas Hlavacek <tmshl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Wolfgang, > > On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de> wrote: >> Dear Tomas Hlavacek, >> >> In message <1351876722-5183-1-git-send-email-tmshl...@gmail.com> you wrote: >>> This patchset is a first stage of preparation of the net subsystem >>> for the driver model. >>> >>> The idea of this patchset is: >>> 1) Remove ops .init, .send, .recv and .halt from the eth_device struct. >>> Add a sparate structure eth_ops which is ready for inclusion >>> to DM core. >>> 2) Replace dynamic init of ops function pointers by static struct. >>> 3) Do minor style cleanup. >>> >>> Tomas Hlavacek (50): >>> net: dm: Pull out ops from struct eth_device >>> net: 4xx_enet: Pull out init of struct eth_ops >>> net: altera_tse: Pull out init of struct eth_ops >>> net: dm9000x: Pull out init of struct eth_ops >>> net: armada100_fec: Pull out init of struct eth_ops >> >> Hm... looking at this patch series, I wonder if it is really >> bisectable? Can I really apply any number of these patches (the first >> N, with N < 50) and expect the code to build and to work? > > It should be, because the first patch adds new struct eth_ops and > changes all accesses to its' members in one step. Patches 2 .. 50 > remove dynamic ops settings and add static initialization to each > affected driver - one patch per driver. I would rather try that by > compiling U-Boot with only 1/50 applied and after some random N, say > 30/50 to be absolutely sure. Let me get back later when I have my > MAKEALL results.
Have you completed this bisectability test yet? How about run testing? What boards did you test this on? Thanks, -Joe _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
