[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bbc22e71-d581-36c0-d5ac-24a2dc8d84fc@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2023 16:25:22 +0100
From: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>
To: Vikash Garodia <quic_vgarodia@...cinc.com>,
stanimir.k.varbanov@...il.com, agross@...nel.org,
andersson@...nel.org, konrad.dybcio@...aro.org, mchehab@...nel.org,
hans.verkuil@...co.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: quic_dikshita@...cinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 33/33] iris: enable building of iris video driver
On 28/07/2023 14:23, Vikash Garodia wrote:
> From: Dikshita Agarwal <quic_dikshita@...cinc.com>
>
> This adds iris driver Makefile and Kconfig, also changes
> v4l2 platform/qcom Makefile/Kconfig in order to
> enable compilation of the driver.
This is not a meaningfully bisectable patch.
It should go with the addition of the driver. Its good practice to break
up incremental changes to a driver in a series but, I don't see why you
really need to do that when adding a whole new driver.
Just
- Documentation
- Bindings
- Driver code
On the other hand if you were switching on IRIS in the default defconfig
then that should be a separate patch.
If we were say adding inter-frame power-collapse to the existing venus
as part of a series, then that makes sense as a standalone patch but IMO
when adding a whole new driver, add it as one.
Its easier to read that way
---
bod
Powered by blists - more mailing lists