On 1/20/23 03:06, Vinod Koul wrote: > On 19-01-23, 11:22, Sean Anderson wrote: >> On 1/18/23 11:54, Vinod Koul wrote: >> > On 17-01-23, 11:46, Sean Anderson wrote: >> >> >> >> I noticed that this series is marked "changes requested" on patchwork. >> >> However, I have received only automated feedback. I have done my best >> >> effort to address feedback I have received on prior revisions. I would >> >> appreciate getting another round of review before resending this series. >> > >> > Looking at the series, looks like kernel-bot sent some warnings on the >> > series so I was expecting an updated series for review >> > >> >> Generally, multiple reviewers will comment on a patch, even if another >> reviewer finds something which needs to be changed. This is a one-line >> fix, so I would appreciate getting more substantial feedback before >> respinning. Every time I send a new series I have to rebase and test on >> hardware. It's work that I would rather do when there is something to be >> gained. > > I review to apply, if I can apply, I would typically skip this > It is much more efficient to conduct reviews in parallel. So e.g. the bindings can be reviewed at the same time as the driver, at the same time as the device tree changes. This way, I can get a series applied after max(N, M, ...) revisions, where I would otherwise need N revisions to get the bindings ready, M revisions to get the driver ready, etc. But what's happening is that I have to make N + M + ... revisions! I am very frustrated by your refusal to review anything until there are no other comments, since it unnecessarily extends the process of getting a series applied. I have been trying to get this series applied since June, with nine revisions, and you have reviewed it *twice*! I think the driver is in a good state and is ready to be applied (aside from the one known issue), but I have no idea if you agree with that assessment. --Sean
