On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Mark Brown broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 04:49:00PM +0900, Jassi Brar wrote:
Define more bit definitions in the order of mainline support for the SoC.
For changes like this it'd be better if the changelog said something like "Add register bit definitions for S5PC1xx" - this is all mainline code so it's much clearer to say that this is adding support for a new SoC.
I thought of adding definitions in 'chronological order of support' in kernel rather than SoC wise. Ok, will divide in two patches.
One other thing I'd suggest is that when constructing a patch series it'd be better to put the more invasive or controversial changes (like moving the headers) last. This makes it easer to apply bits of the series if there is any controversy.
I thought I already made that sure. In my opinion, the only controversial patch was 'header-copying' and I couldn't move that any further down the series or other changes without that.