[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <98eaa342-8405-56af-0804-38c7c1e5bc2a@ti.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 08:13:17 -0600
From: "Andrew F. Davis" <afd@...com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
BenoƮt Cousson <bcousson@...libre.com>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
<alsa-devel@...a-project.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/17] ASoC: tlv320aic31xx: General source formatting
cleanup
On 11/09/2017 06:41 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 06:27:25PM -0600, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
>> Simple non-functional changes including:
>>
>> * Fix header copyright tags
>> * Fix spelling errors
>> * Reformat code for easier reading
>> * Move some code blocks to a more natural ordering
>> * Remove unneeded code
>> * Remove assignments that are always overridden
>> * Normalize function return paths
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrew F. Davis <afd@...com>
>
> There's other things in here like adding error reporting... please
> don't send changes like this, if you want to do cleanups you should
> split them up in the same way you would other changes. Bigger patches
> are harder to review especially if they're not repetitive examples of
> the same pattern.
>
I'm never really sure with these where the split point should be, almost
every change in here could be its own patch if I really wanted to pad my
kernel patch count, but this series is already 17 patches long and I
usually see these all as the same logical action: non-functional cleanups.
I agree the added error message isn't purely non-functional and so
should be broken out, I'll break out a couple other changes for v2.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists