Re: [PATCH v6.1] media: dt-bindings: Add OV5670

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 09:58:40AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 01:11:32PM +0100, 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 ?
>
> So? Think of patch series as an 'email transport' for your git branches.
> If you rebase your branch, that's a whole new branch to send.
>

So if a series has a single comment and could be then collected as it
is but one patch I saw it happening multiple times on the ML and I
thought it was an accepted practice.


> > What is difficult exactly ?
>
> In addition to 'b4 diff', if a maintainer is applying this series, for a
> v7 they just do:
>
> b4 shazam msgid-of-v7
>
> For v6.1, they do:
>
> b4 shazam msgid-of-v6
> git rebase -i ...
> <stop on patch 1>
> git reset --hard HEAD^
> b4 shazam msgid-of-v6.1
> git rebase --continue
>
> Which one makes the maintainer's life easier?
>

With b4 it now certainly makes a difference.

As I save patches from my mail client and apply them manually I never
really considered picking one patch over the other from the same
thread "more difficult". I should have noticed when Krzysztof
mentioned b4 in his first reply.

> If it's a CI job trying to apply and test this, there's no way it's
> going to do the second case.
>

That's another point yes.

Got your message, I'll stop :)

Don't think a v7 is needed for this on though (if not other
comments ofc)

> Rob



[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree Compilter]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux PCI Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]


  Powered by Linux