Re: [PATCH 1/5] [POWERPC] cpm2: Updates for CPM2 pic

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 13:13:23 +1100
Paul Mackerras wrote:

Vitaly Bordug writes:

quoted

This contains important fixes for the CPM2 PIC code. Eliminated
CPM_IRQ_OFFSET, pulling the respective interrupt numbers from the
interrupt mapping. Updated devicetree files to reflect that.
Changed direct IC-related IO accesses to the IO accessors.

I can't put these patches in for 2.6.20 with the titles and
descriptions you have given.

well that is to say, mpc8272 is utterly broken without patch 1, as interrupt controller will not work at all.
8560's cpm2-related will be hosed too (hence no uart, heh)

At this stage, for stuff to go into 2.6.20, you need to clearly
identify what the problem is that you're fixing and give at least some
indication of why it needs to be fixed for 2.6.20.  If the code
currently won't compile at all for some config, or is now completely
wrong because of changes elsewhere, or could cause an oops, then we
can fix it, but I need something better than just "Updates" in the
title and a list of what changes you made in the description.  At the
moment I look at your patch titles and descriptions and think "that's
nice, but why should it go in 2.6.20?"

OK. I'll update descriptions and resubmit

If you're fixing up something that worked in 2.6.19 but now doesn't
work, that helps justify the change, but you need to say that.

These comments apply particularly to patches 1 to 3 in your series.
For patch 4/5 you at least told us that changes to io.h caused the
breakage, but even there a bit more detail about what changes caused
what breakage would be useful.  However, at this stage, you need to
resist the temptation to do other "overhaul and improvements" while
you are there; just fix the bugs or breakages that you have identified
in the description.

All above is quite right, however  patch 4 does not contain extra code iirc (that do not address breakages),
I just kept same description it used to have at initial revision, submitted during merge window. 

Patch 5/5 is OK since it doesn't touch any actual code

Thanks for looking over this stuff such promptly...

Paul.