Hello, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on Mon, 6 Mar 2023 14:55:44 +0100: > On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 02:54:10PM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > > On 2023-03-01 16:22, Miquel Raynal wrote: > > > The base series on which these changes apply is still contained in [1], > > > I would prefer to keep it as it was and apply this series on top of it. > > > > > > (...) > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/miquelraynal/linux/tree/nvmem-next/layouts > > > > My experience with kernel development over all subsystems I touched is > > that patches should be improved until being clean & acceptable. I never > > sent a series with more recent patches fixing issues in earlier patches > > of the same seriee. > > > > So my preference would be to get a new, clean & complete set of patches. > > I agree, don't break something and then fix it up in a later patch, that > makes bisection impossible. Apart from two rather small fixes which I can squash if that's what you are requesting, most of the series is already fine on its own, fully working and bisectable. On top of that initial series from Michael I am adding support for compiling additional code as modules, which is arguably another feature. I don't see the point in merging them both besides mixing two different works. Looking at the code shows that every step is pretty clean, there is nothing going back and forth. I will anyway try to make it look like a single series with the changes requested by Rob in v2. Thanks, Miquèl
