[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdam6kbGNywdaoxMJ4gCisyne_PNmXQfVczwi8ToABGgUw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 02:16:54 +0100
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Álvaro Fernández Rojas <noltari@...il.com>
Cc: Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
bcm-kernel-feedback-list <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
Jonas Gorski <jonas.gorski@...il.com>,
Necip Fazil Yildiran <fazilyildiran@...il.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 02/15] gpio: regmap: set gpio_chip of_node
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 8:12 PM Álvaro Fernández Rojas
<noltari@...il.com> wrote:
> > If there will be a new version, please add the following comment:
>
> Right now I don’t know that either, because I’m honestly getting tired of this…
IMO there is indeed such a thing as over-review when it comes
to migrating legacy platforms: as subsystem maintainer I ask the bigger
question: does the kernel look better after than before this patch? If the
author is stressed by too much review I tend to just apply it and say that
comments can be addressed by additional patches.
DT bindings are different because they are written in stone. We just need
to settle the DT bindings. Give the patch set some rest and come back and
poke me to apply it when the chatter stops.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
Powered by blists - more mailing lists