[U-Boot] [PATCH v2 00/99] ram: rk3399: Add LPDDR4 support

[Kever Yang]

Jagan,


On 07/04/2019 06:54 PM, Jagan Teki wrote:
> Hi Kever,
>
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 3:57 PM Kever Yang <kever.yang at rock-chips.com> wrote:
>> Jagan,
>>
>>
>> On 06/26/2019 06:22 PM, Jagan Teki wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 12:12 AM Ezequiel Garcia
>> <ezequiel at vanguardiasur.com.ar> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jagan,
>>
>> Thanks for your hard work. I'm sure everyone in the Rockchip community
>> is excited about finally having this support in U-Boot.
>>
>> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 12:46, Jagan Teki <jagan at amarulasolutions.com> wrote:
>> [..]
>>
>> Was it absolutely necessary to split these changes into 99 commits? I
>> believe at least some of them can be squashed. Reviewing 99 patches
>> isn't feasible.
>>
>> Squashed, I'm not sure because the patches were created to satisfy the
>> bisectability and travis-ci, if you find any please feel to comment.
>> About the commit count, I have mentioned in v1, the idea of having
>> many commits in one series to have all lpddr4(-related) changes in one
>> place and also all the commit has incremental approach of supporting
>> rank detection and lpddr4. If require I'm open to sent next versions
>> as multiple series, no problem on that.
>>
>> I strongly agree with Vasily, and I don't think multiple series makes it any
>> better.
>>
>> What's the reason for having two commits for:
>>
>> "ram: rk3399: Set lpddr4 MR3" and "ram: rk3399: Set lpddr4 MR12" ?
>>
>> These are individual lpddr4 set rate registers to support, each one is
>> independent on it' own initialization and more over on the whole, it
>> is critical to review.
>>
>> Or splitting all the "ram: rk3399: Add ... macro" ?
>>
>> You mean the patches 13 to 20 same like above each one has it's own
>> meaning. It is not meaningful to squash them all.
>>
>>
>> 99 patches is really too much, but I'm not sure how smaller it can be.
>> Reference to kernel document, it suggest not more than 15 at one time:
> Agreed.
>
>>     NO!!!! No more huge patch bombs to linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org people! <https://lkml.org/lkml/2005/7/11/336> But please note that I don't think split this into different series make any sense. But maybe you can try to squash as much as you can. eg. the update for dram_all_config may able to squash into one patch,
>> and some new MACRO and its reference code may be able to squash.
>> So it depends on how you define about _logical change_.
>> I'm not sure if this have happen in the history of U-Boot mailing list, but
>> I think this big patch set will be complained by many people if this is send to
>> kernel.
> I don't mean to split the lpddr4 changes into multiple series. what
> I'm trying to say here is this series has patches that support code
> warnings, rank detection. Since each of them has it own identical
> features, I'm planning to send them first. and will squash what it
> require on lpddr4.
>
> Will that be okay for you?

That's OK for me, just need to let people know the patch set dependency.

Thanks,
- Kever
>