[U-Boot] [PATCH 01/13] davinci_emac: move arch-independent defines to separate header

[Tom Rini]

On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Igor Grinberg <grinberg at compulab.co.il> wrote:
> On 11/30/11 16:21, Tom Rini wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:35 AM, Igor Grinberg <grinberg at compulab.co.il> wrote:
>>> On 11/29/11 20:57, Tom Rini wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Ilya Yanok <yanok at emcraft.com> wrote:
>>>>> DaVinci EMAC is found not only on DaVinci SoCs but on some OMAP3 SoCs
>>>>> also. This patch moves common defines from arch-davinci/emac_defs.h to
>>>>> drivers/net/davinci_emac.h
>>>>>
>>>>> DaVinci specific PHY drivers hacked to include the new header. We might
>>>>> want to switch to phylib in future.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ilya Yanok <yanok at emcraft.com>
>>>>
>>>> I missed the 0/13 email but, patches 1 to 10 will be queued up into
>>>> u-boot-ti, Scott mentioned a problem with 11, I haven't seen anything
>>>> about 12 (but it's delegated to someone else) and I've commented on
>>>> 13.  This should at least reduce the repost burden, thanks for all
>>>> your patience here!
>>>
>>> Good to hear, you are a co-custodian for u-boot-ti, I really like it, but...
>>> You should let patches hang a little on the list...
>>> This version was published just 1.5 days ago...
>>
>> True, but the changes you object to were around for a while longer
>> than that.  And really what needs to happen with this driver is
>> switching to phylib (like the kernel version does).
>
> That is also true, I admit.
> Meanwhile, shouldn't we make at least this one kind of clearer?
> Because, future intend is not an excuse for ugly code, right?

Relative includes are also relatively common.  This wins on depth,
true.  Albert?  Wolfgang?  Is this "too ugly to live" and we need to
fix it or live with it until we can switch to phylib?

-- 
Tom