Hi Marco, On 21.10.19 13:43, Marco Felsch wrote: > Hi Frieder, > > On 19-10-17 08:24, Schrempf Frieder wrote: >> Hi Marco, >> >> On 17.10.19 10:14, Marco Felsch wrote: >>> Hi Frieder, >>> >>> On 19-10-16 15:06, Schrempf Frieder wrote: >>>> From: Frieder Schrempf <frieder.schrempf@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> In order to support more of the i.MX6UL/ULL-based SoMs and boards by >>>> Kontron Electronics GmbH, we restructure the devicetrees to share common >>>> parts and add new devicetrees for the missing boards. >>>> >>>> Currently there are the following SoM flavors: >>>> * N6310: SoM with i.MX6UL-2, 256MB RAM, 256MB SPI NAND >>>> * N6311: SoM with i.MX6UL-2, 512MB RAM, 512MB SPI NAND (new) >>>> * N6411: SoM with i.MX6ULL, 512MB RAM, 512MB SPI NAND (new) >>>> >>>> Each of the SoMs also features 1MB SPI NOR and an Ethernet PHY. The carrier >>>> board for the evalkit is the same for all SoMs. >>>> >>>> Frieder Schrempf (10): >>>> ARM: dts: imx6ul-kontron-n6310: Move common SoM nodes to a separate >>>> file >>>> ARM: dts: Add support for two more Kontron SoMs N6311 and N6411 >>>> ARM: dts: imx6ul-kontron-n6310-s: Move common nodes to a separate file >>>> ARM: dts: Add support for two more Kontron evalkit boards 'N6311 S' >>>> and 'N6411 S' >>>> ARM: dts: imx6ul-kontron-n6x1x: Add 'chosen' node with 'stdout-path' >>>> ARM: dts: imx6ul-kontron-n6x1x-s: Specify bus-width for SD card and >>>> eMMC >>>> ARM: dts: imx6ul-kontron-n6x1x-s: Add vbus-supply and overcurrent >>>> polarity to usb nodes >>>> ARM: dts: imx6ul-kontron-n6x1x-s: Remove an obsolete comment and fix >>>> indentation >>>> dt-bindings: arm: fsl: Add more Kontron i.MX6UL/ULL compatibles >>>> MAINTAINERS: Add an entry for Kontron Electronics ARM board support >>> >>> Did you send all patches to same To: and Cc:? >> >> No, I have a script that runs get_maintainer.pl for each patch. So the >> recipients might differ. I only had Krzysztof and Rob as hard-coded >> recipients for the whole series. >> >> Do you think I should change this so each recipient receives the whole >> series? > > I do it that way because sometimes it is better for the reviewer to see > the whole context. Sounds reasonable. Thanks for the feedback. Sometimes it just feels like it will cause a lot of useless mail traffic when sending all patches to all people suggested by get_maintainer.pl, but in general I agree, it is definitely useful to receive all the context. I might have to tweak my get_maintainer arguments, to trim the list of recipients and then send the whole series to these people. Thanks, Frieder
