Hi Robert,
Branch looks good, I'll merge this into next/fixes-non-critical. One nit below
though:
quoted
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov (3):
ARM: pxa: add regulator_has_full_constraints to corgi board file
ARM: pxa: add regulator_has_full_constraints to poodle board file
ARM: pxa: add regulator_has_full_constraints to spitz board file
Martin Vajnar (1):
hx4700: regulator: declare full constraints
Please use consistent patch subjects in the future. We've ended up using ARM:
<platform>: <foo> across all platforms these days.
I'm not going to ask you to respin just for this, but please remember to fix
future patches when you apply them if they're not already correct.
You're right, I missed that one.
In case you've not already pulled, I created :
https://github.com/rjarzmik/linux.git tags/pxa-for-3.20-bis
I can resend a proper pull request if you wish, or we can leave it as is if you
already pulled. In any case I'll be more carefull next time, maybe I can
convince my bot to check that for me too.
Or even better checkpatch could check that any patch with a diffstat fully in
arch/arm/{mach,plat}-<XYZ> has a subject beginning with "ARM: XYZ: ", that would
be cool, and put the burden on others as well :)
Cheers.
--
Robert
From: Olof Johansson <hidden> Date: 2015-01-27 02:17:33
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 03:18:11PM +0100, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
Olof Johansson [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Hi Robert,
Branch looks good, I'll merge this into next/fixes-non-critical. One nit below
though:
quoted
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov (3):
ARM: pxa: add regulator_has_full_constraints to corgi board file
ARM: pxa: add regulator_has_full_constraints to poodle board file
ARM: pxa: add regulator_has_full_constraints to spitz board file
Martin Vajnar (1):
hx4700: regulator: declare full constraints
Please use consistent patch subjects in the future. We've ended up using ARM:
<platform>: <foo> across all platforms these days.
I'm not going to ask you to respin just for this, but please remember to fix
future patches when you apply them if they're not already correct.
You're right, I missed that one.
In case you've not already pulled, I created :
https://github.com/rjarzmik/linux.git tags/pxa-for-3.20-bis
I can resend a proper pull request if you wish, or we can leave it as is if you
already pulled. In any case I'll be more carefull next time, maybe I can
convince my bot to check that for me too.
I had already merged, but it looks like you broke viper and zeus. Both of them
still refer to PXA_ISA_IRQ().
Can you send an incremental patch for that? Or if you prefer that we drop this
branch for now while you sort it out that's OK too -- your preference.
Or even better checkpatch could check that any patch with a diffstat fully in
arch/arm/{mach,plat}-<XYZ> has a subject beginning with "ARM: XYZ: ", that would
be cool, and put the burden on others as well :)
Yeah we normally scale this by educating downstream maintainers. checkpatch is
useful in many cases but making it do everything is hard.
-Olof
I had already merged, but it looks like you broke viper and zeus. Both of them
still refer to PXA_ISA_IRQ().
Can you send an incremental patch for that? Or if you prefer that we drop this
branch for now while you sort it out that's OK too -- your preference.
I'll send an incremental patch.
I'm really frustrated my bot didn't catch that, I suppose yours caught it by
building viper_defconfig ...
Yeah we normally scale this by educating downstream maintainers. checkpatch is
useful in many cases but making it do everything is hard.
Yeah, but humans do forget, even educated ... I'll be carefull as much as I can,
but I knew the rule and yet this slipped through.
Cheers.
--
Robert
From: Olof Johansson <hidden> Date: 2015-01-27 04:45:10
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 8:42 PM, Robert Jarzmik [off-list ref] wrote:
Olof Johansson [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
I had already merged, but it looks like you broke viper and zeus. Both of them
still refer to PXA_ISA_IRQ().
Can you send an incremental patch for that? Or if you prefer that we drop this
branch for now while you sort it out that's OK too -- your preference.
I'll send an incremental patch.
I'm really frustrated my bot didn't catch that, I suppose yours caught it by
building viper_defconfig ...
Yeah, I build all defconfigs.
quoted
Yeah we normally scale this by educating downstream maintainers. checkpatch is
useful in many cases but making it do everything is hard.
Yeah, but humans do forget, even educated ... I'll be carefull as much as I can,
but I knew the rule and yet this slipped through.
Oh, no worries. We're all human, which is why I pointed it out when I
noticed it. Next time I might miss it too. It happens.
-Olof