linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] regulator: max5970: Rename driver and remove wildcard

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <cda57ab9-bc08-f756-f13f-aeff71d2aaa6@9elements.com>
Date:   Thu, 27 Apr 2023 16:58:05 +0530
From:   Naresh Solanki <naresh.solanki@...ements.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] regulator: max5970: Rename driver and remove wildcard

Hi Mark,

On 27-04-2023 04:44 pm, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 12:22:54PM +0200, Naresh Solanki wrote:
>> The previous version of this driver included wildcards in file names and
>> descriptions. This patch renames the driver to only support MAX5970 and
>> MAX5978, which are the only chips that the driver actually supports.
> 
> You've not copied me on the rest of the series so I don't know what's
> going on with dependencies.  When sending a patch series it is important
> to ensure that all the various maintainers understand what the
> relationship between the patches as the expecation is that there will be
> interdependencies.  Either copy everyone on the whole series or at least
> copy them on the cover letter and explain what's going on.  If there are
> no strong interdependencies then it's generally simplest to just send
> the patches separately to avoid any possible confusion.
Thanks for letting me know.
Will resend with maintainers included in every patch.

Regards,
Naresh