[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZAXw4EHQldOi35gJ@kroah.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2023 14:55:44 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>
Cc: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.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 Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 02:54:10PM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> 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.
I agree, don't break something and then fix it up in a later patch, that
makes bisection impossible.
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists