linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/8] Ingenic JZ47xx Timer/Counter Unit drivers

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 28 Mar 2018 17:10:22 +0200
From:   Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To:     Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        James Hogan <jhogan@...nel.org>,
        Maarten ter Huurne <maarten@...ewalker.org>,
        linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/8] Ingenic JZ47xx Timer/Counter Unit drivers

On 28/03/2018 17:01, Paul Cercueil wrote:
> Le 2018-03-18 23:13, Daniel Lezcano a écrit :
>> On 18/03/2018 00:28, Paul Cercueil wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> This is the 4th version of my TCU patchset.
>>>
>>> The major change is a greatly improved documentation, both in-code
>>> and as separate text files, to describe how the hardware works and
>>> how the devicetree bindings should be used.
>>>
>>> There are also cosmetic changes in the irqchip driver, and the
>>> clocksource driver will now use as timers all TCU channels not
>>> requested by the TCU PWM driver.
>>
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> I don't know why but you series appears in reply to [PATCH v3 2/9]. Not
>> sure if it is my mailer or how you are sending the patches but if it is
>> the latter can you in the future, when resending a new version, not use
>> the in-reply-to option. It will be easier to follow the versions.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>  -- Daniel
> 
> Hi Daniel,
> 
> I guess I did a mistake. I always reply to the first patch of the previous
> version of the patchset (is that correct?).

It depends, if you have a threaded view of emails, it is not easy to
review the patches when they are in several levels. Usually you can see
the patches is top posted without in-reply-to every version.

You can use in-reply-to to an email suggesting a change in order to give
context.

For the v4 series of these drivers, I'm lost :/


-- 
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog