On 29/01/2023 13:11, Jacopo Mondi wrote: > On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 12:40:03PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 28/01/2023 12:27, Jacopo Mondi wrote: >>> Add the bindings documentation for Omnivision OV5670 image sensor. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jacopo Mondi <jacopo.mondi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> v6->6.1 >>> - Use additionalProperties: false for endpoint properties from >>> video-interfaces.yaml >>> - List 'remote-endpoint' among the accepted endpoint properties >>> now that we use additionalProperties: false >> >> b4 diff '20230128112736.8000-1-jacopo.mondi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx' >> Could not create fake-am range for lower series v1 >> >> Can you send patches in a way it does not break out workflows? Why >> making our review process more difficult? > > Because it's a nit on a 10 patches series with no other changes > requested ? > > What is difficult exactly ? I wrote above what's difficult. > > I see several patches in linux-media being sent inline to a previous > version for small fixes if the only required changed is a nit like > this one. If you sent it as separate v7 would be fine, but: 1. Threading is wrong - it's buried in other patch. 2. Version is wrong - you did there changes, not nits. There are no point versions... Best regards, Krzysztof
