[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <88b8ed4babd8c2d00ff4a4d8876378ba@milecki.pl>
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2023 14:54:10 +0100
From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>
To: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
Cc: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
Robert Marko <robert.marko@...tura.hr>,
Luka Perkov <luka.perkov@...tura.hr>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] nvmem: Let layout drivers be modules
On 2023-03-01 16:22, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> The base series on which these changes apply is still contained in [1],
> I would prefer to keep it as it was and apply this series on top of it.
>
> (...)
>
> [1] https://github.com/miquelraynal/linux/tree/nvmem-next/layouts
My experience with kernel development over all subsystems I touched is
that patches should be improved until being clean & acceptable. I never
sent a series with more recent patches fixing issues in earlier patches
of the same seriee.
So my preference would be to get a new, clean & complete set of patches.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists