Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1417487 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH V2] MAINTAINERS: Add Dialog PMIC search terms for missing documentation and header files

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH V2] MAINTAINERS: Add Dialog PMIC search terms for missing  documentation and header files Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2016-06-08 16:20 +0200
    RE: [PATCH V2] MAINTAINERS: Add Dialog PMIC search terms for  missing documentation and header files "Opensource [Steve Twiss]" <stwiss.opensource@diasemi.com> - 2016-06-08 19:40 +0200
      Re: [PATCH V2] MAINTAINERS: Add Dialog PMIC search terms for missing  documentation and header files Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2016-06-08 19:50 +0200
        Re: [PATCH V2] MAINTAINERS: Add Dialog PMIC search terms for missing  documentation and header files Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2016-06-09 16:00 +0200

#1417487 — Re: [PATCH V2] MAINTAINERS: Add Dialog PMIC search terms for missing documentation and header files

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 08:53:46AM +0100, Steve Twiss wrote:

> The majority of these updates are for MFD documentation and headers,
> although there is a mixture with the regulators as well.

> I previously send a patch TO: Lee and CC:'ed Mark, but I think now I
> need to resend V2 with Mark in the TO: field.
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/11/419

No, the issue here is that this is MFD patch with a non-obvious subject
line, it's getting a lot of new versions (which usually indicates that
there's stuff going on and it might well change again quickly) and it's
getting replies (which would normally suggest it's being taken care of
or needs more revision).  This all means that it looks like something
best left for later.

> I have also updated this V2 patch to align with linux-next/v4.6
> and removed the change to the onkey driver.

> Lee: with Mark's Ack, would it be possible for you to take these
> through please?

Acked-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>

We *really* shouldn't be blocking on my ack for trivial changes outside
the subsystem like this though :(

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1417735 — RE: [PATCH V2] MAINTAINERS: Add Dialog PMIC search terms for missing documentation and header files

On 08 June 2016 15:19, Mark Brown wrote:

> Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] MAINTAINERS: Add Dialog PMIC search terms for
> missing documentation and header files
> 
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 08:53:46AM +0100, Steve Twiss wrote:
> 
> > The majority of these updates are for MFD documentation and headers,
> > although there is a mixture with the regulators as well.
> 
> > I previously send a patch TO: Lee and CC:'ed Mark, but I think now I
> > need to resend V2 with Mark in the TO: field.
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/11/419
> 
> No, the issue here is that this is MFD patch with a non-obvious subject
> line,

Thanks Mark,

I originally used "Dialog PMIC" in the Subject line to describe the coverage
of MFD, regulator and input/ONKEY. I will be more explicit in future.

> it's getting a lot of new versions (which usually indicates that
> there's stuff going on and it might well change again quickly) and it's
> getting replies (which would normally suggest it's being taken care of
> or needs more revision).  This all means that it looks like something
> best left for later.
> 
> > I have also updated this V2 patch to align with linux-next/v4.6
> > and removed the change to the onkey driver.
> 
> > Lee: with Mark's Ack, would it be possible for you to take these
> > through please?
> 
> Acked-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
> 
> We *really* shouldn't be blocking on my ack for trivial changes outside
> the subsystem like this though :(

There had been no reply since my first e-mail round about a month ago, so I
figured there was something wrong with the patch submission.

Lee has since applied PATCH V3 which I resent earlier today. That version finally
removed the regulator files and deleted you from the TO: and CC: e-mail fields 
thereby removing you as a dependency.

I will have to send the regulator updates separately at a later date.

In future I will split up the responsibility and define the Subject line better to
remove any ambiguity.

Regards,
Steve

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1417738

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 05:25:30PM +0000, Opensource [Steve Twiss] wrote:
> On 08 June 2016 15:19, Mark Brown wrote:

> > We *really* shouldn't be blocking on my ack for trivial changes outside
> > the subsystem like this though :(

> There had been no reply since my first e-mail round about a month ago, so I
> figured there was something wrong with the patch submission.

It was the activity pattern on the patch more than anything else, and of
course the merge window was in that month as well.

> In future I will split up the responsibility and define the Subject line better to
> remove any ambiguity.

Like I say a trivial maintainers update like this really should just get
applied anyway.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1418352

On Wed, 08 Jun 2016, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 05:25:30PM +0000, Opensource [Steve Twiss] wrote:
> > On 08 June 2016 15:19, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> > > We *really* shouldn't be blocking on my ack for trivial changes outside
> > > the subsystem like this though :(
> 
> > There had been no reply since my first e-mail round about a month ago, so I
> > figured there was something wrong with the patch submission.
> 
> It was the activity pattern on the patch more than anything else, and of
> course the merge window was in that month as well.
> 
> > In future I will split up the responsibility and define the Subject line better to
> > remove any ambiguity.
> 
> Like I say a trivial maintainers update like this really should just get
> applied anyway.

Right.  I was about to apply this regardless.

The issue was not specific to this patch. I tend to go dark during
the merge-window to concentrate on my 'real job' (TM).  I applied your
other patch because it's the one I came across first.  This one was
marked as "to review" (as I am doing now).

Don't worry about splitting, I will apply this and remove the other.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web