[PATCH 1/9] R600/SI: fix stupid typo

[Sean Silva]

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:31 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Those patches belong together and either implement new features or fix
>> bugs that were triggered/found while implementing those new features.
>> Reviewing them separately would just increase the chance of missing
>> something regarding inter patch dependency.
>
> There should not be circular dependency, one way dependence should be
> resolved by sending the dependent patches first, as they are developed. They
> should stand in their own right - though may require some narrative to
> explain where they fit in a longer term plan.
>
> Though of course this is not always the case and sometimes you don't know
> where a patch set will start until you get to the end. In which case you
> have a whole patch set ready for review/commit at the same time. Sending
> that in one batch is what it is - but when possible it's nice to avoid such
> a dump.

Especially when using git (which it appears that the OP is using), it
is dead simple to reorder and factor out these kinds of patch set
dependencies after the fact in order to ease review and clarity.

-- Sean Silva