Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] ARM: tegra: Remove cpuidle drivers

[Jon Hunter]

On 11/07/2019 18:03, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> 11.07.2019 12:26, Jon Hunter ÐÐÑÐÑ:
>>
>> On 11/07/2019 04:13, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>> Remove the old drivers to replace them cleanly with a new one later on.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>  arch/arm/mach-tegra/Makefile           |  13 --
>>>  arch/arm/mach-tegra/cpuidle-tegra114.c |  89 -----------
>>>  arch/arm/mach-tegra/cpuidle-tegra20.c  | 212 -------------------------
>>>  arch/arm/mach-tegra/cpuidle-tegra30.c  | 132 ---------------
>>>  arch/arm/mach-tegra/cpuidle.c          |  50 ------
>>>  arch/arm/mach-tegra/cpuidle.h          |  21 ---
>>>  arch/arm/mach-tegra/irq.c              |  18 ---
>>>  arch/arm/mach-tegra/irq.h              |  11 --
>>>  arch/arm/mach-tegra/pm.c               |   7 -
>>>  arch/arm/mach-tegra/pm.h               |   1 -
>>>  arch/arm/mach-tegra/reset-handler.S    |  11 --
>>>  arch/arm/mach-tegra/reset.h            |   9 +-
>>>  arch/arm/mach-tegra/sleep-tegra20.S    | 190 +---------------------
>>>  arch/arm/mach-tegra/sleep.h            |  12 --
>>>  arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra.c            |   3 -
>>>  drivers/soc/tegra/Kconfig              |   1 -
>>>  include/soc/tegra/cpuidle.h            |   4 -
>>>  17 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 779 deletions(-)
>>>  delete mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-tegra/cpuidle-tegra114.c
>>>  delete mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-tegra/cpuidle-tegra20.c
>>>  delete mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-tegra/cpuidle-tegra30.c
>>>  delete mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-tegra/cpuidle.c
>>>  delete mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-tegra/cpuidle.h
>>>  delete mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-tegra/irq.h
>>
>> By removing all the above, it is really hard to review the diff. Is
>> there any way you could first consolidate the cpuidle drivers into say
>> the existing arch/arm/mach-tegra/cpuidle-tegra20.c and then move to
>> drivers/cpuidle?
> 
> I'm afraid that it will make reviewing even more difficult because
> everything that is removed here is not returned in the further patches.
> The new driver is based on the older ones, but I wrote it from scratch
> and it's not only looks different, but also works a bit different as you
> may see.
> 
> Could you please clarify what exactly makes it hard to review? The diff
> looks pretty clean to me, while squashing everything into existing
> driver should be quite a mess.

Ideally a patch should standalone and can be reviewed by itself.
However, to review this, we need to review patches 1, 2 and 3 at the
same time. So IMO it is not that convenient from a reviewers
perspective. Furthermore, patches 1 and 3 are large and so easy to miss
something.

Is there really no way to have a patch to combined the existing drivers,
then a patch to convert them into the newer rewritten version you have
implemented, then move the driver?

Jon

-- 
nvpublic