Yufeng Shen wrote:

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Nick Dyer <nick.dyer@itdev.co.uk
<mailto:nick.dyer@itdev.co.uk>> wrote:

quoted

Dmitry Torokhov wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 04:55:57PM +0100, Nick Dyer wrote:

quoted

rydberg@euromail.se <mailto:rydberg@euromail.se> wrote:

quoted

First: thanks for the patches and you work on this driver.

Thank you for your time in looking at these changes.

quoted

Now, I don't swear much, but I would like to emphasize line 161 of
Documentation/SubmittingPatches:

**Do not send more than 15 patches at once to the vger mailing

lists!!!***

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

One reason that should be obvious by now is that your work will be
attended to much quicker. One may think that it is more efficient to
send the whole backlog at once, but in fact, the time it takes to get
a patchset accepted is inversely proportional to the length of the
patchset. So please, keep it small and simple next time,

Apologies. I will split this lot up into several smaller series of

patches.

quoted

quoted

Wait, I am in the process of applying it actually...

I wonder, have you made any progress with this? Is there any way I can
assist?

Hey Dimitry,

What's the status on this ?

I noticed that at  /pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dtor/input, branch
atmel-mxt-ts has part of Nick's patches applied
but not all. The upstream tree and Nick's tree
 https://github.com/ndyer/linux/commits/for-next are still
significantly diverged.

I am wondering any plan on your side to apply more patches that sent out by
Nick ?

We (Chromium authors) are planning on bringing our local tree of atmel
driver to be as close as possible to
upstream and trying to figure out what's the best tree to rebase against.

I was considering picking up the patches that Dimitry has already reviewed
and rebasing them against the current mainline to try and get things moving
again - would that be useful?