Hi Mark,
On Tuesday 23 August 2011 09:52:03 Ujfalusi, Peter wrote:
I do think it'd be helpful to split this code out as a separate patch as it's the controversial bit...
It is not that easy. There's no incremental way from the old driver to the new one. What I can try however is to write an intermediate driver, which does not have the delayed sequencing. I know that this is a bit problematic, and it is not going to work as good as the driver in this series, but probably it will give the needed separation of the sequencing part. This going to take some time, since I need to - kind of - write a new driver, which is in half way between the two versions ;)
I have looked at the possibility of separating the controversial part from the rest of the change, but it does not look feasible. I would need to write a driver to fill the gap (well a hack driver for the time of one commit), and even in that way the patch which adds the 'controversial' bit is going to contain quite a bit of code, since I need to rework other parts of the driver. I think the improved commit message contains enough information on the change.
Thanks, Péter