[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150604170640.GN14071@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 18:06:40 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Nariman Poushin <nariman@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
patches@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] regmap: Add reg_sequence for use with
multi_reg_write / register_patch
On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 03:21:19PM +0100, Nariman Poushin wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 07:15:13PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > You need to squash the changes in since they break bisection if handled
> > separately. It would be better to do this by having a separate patch to
> > add the newly named structure rather than adding the new functionality
> > at the same time. That makes the patch more mechanical and easier to
> > review.
> Ok, I have a patch set ready (as you described) but I am having some
> problem deciding on the correct distribution, the squashed patch that
> touches a whole bunch of subsystems ends up with a monstrous
> get_maintainer.pl output, so even going through and checking
> MAINTAINERS I have ended up with a large list (26 individuals and lists).
> Is this ok? I am not sure if it is going to get bounced by mail servers
> as spam or whether it's bad etiquette to do this, but as you say
> we don't want to break the bisection.
Probably post individual patches for people to look at but make it clear
that they need to go in as a single API change patch rather than be
applied in the commit message.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists