[U-Boot] [PATCH 2/5] ARM: vexpress: create A9 specific board config

[Albert ARIBAUD]

Hi Andre,

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 12:31:08 +0200, Andre Przywara
<andre.przywara at linaro.org> wrote:

> On 04/04/2013 12:09 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> > Hi Andre,
> >
> > On Wed,  3 Apr 2013 15:44:33 +0200, Andre Przywara
> > <andre.przywara at linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Ryan Harkin <ryan.harkin at linaro.org>
> >>
> >> This patch creates a new config for the A9 quad core tile that includes the
> >> generic config for the Versatile Express platform.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Ryan Harkin <ryan.harkin at linaro.org>
> >> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara at linaro.org>
> >> ---
> >>   MAINTAINERS                       |  2 +-
> >>   boards.cfg                        |  2 +-
> >>   include/configs/vexpress_ca9x4.h  | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>   include/configs/vexpress_common.h |  1 -
> >>   4 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>   create mode 100644 include/configs/vexpress_ca9x4.h
> >
> > Wait, so patch 1/5 renames ca9x4_ct_vxp as vexpress_common, then patch
> > 2/5 renames vexpress_common as vexpress_ca9x4? If so then please make
> > this a single patch without the intermediary/temporary step.
> 
> But that would not mark the actual file copy (vexpress_common.h is 
> almost the same as vexpress_ca9x4.h) as such, right?
> So you would end up with a completely new file (_common.h) and
> a file with almost all content deleted (_ca9x4.h). The fact that the 
> code just moved wouldn't be obvious.
> That would be extra pity with the nice -M move features in the previous 
> patch.

Try -C too, for copies, and possibly --find-copies-harder.

I don't see how eliminating the intermediate target naming would
prevent git from detecting moves and copies; and it will simplify the
changes undergone by non-header files such as baords.cfg and
MAINTAINERS.

> However I have no problems with merging these two, if you insist.

I am fine with either of the two following solutions:

a) If patch 1/5 commonalizes vexpress code, then it should not rename
any target, and patch 2/5 should do the renaming.

or

b) if patch 1/5 commonalizes and renames the target, it should give it
its final name and patch 2 should be merged in.

> Regards,
> Andre.

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.