On 14/04/2023 19:14, Dipen Patel wrote: > On 4/14/23 12:36 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 14/04/2023 02:44, Dipen Patel wrote: >>> This patch series mainly adds support for the Tegra234 HTE provider. In >>> addition, it addresses dt binding comments which prompted code >>> changes in the existing HTE provider driver without breaking the >>> Tegra194 provider. The comments raised concern how existing code >>> retrieves gpio controller node >>> (the node is used to help namespace conversion between HTE and GPIOLIB). >>> To help simplify that process, new DT property is suggested which adds >>> gpio controller node in the HTE provider binding as phandle property. To >>> conlude this patch series: >>> - adds Tegra234 HTE provider >>> - modifies existing provider code to address new dt binding for Tegra234 >>> without breaking it for the Tegra194 chip. >>> >>> The V1 patch series: >>> - Adds tegra Tegra234 HTE(timestamp) provider supports. >>> - Updates MAINTAINERS file for git tree, mail list fields. >>> - Updates devicetree and API documentations. >>> - Enables HTE subsystem, Tegra194 and Tegra234 HTE providers >>> by default in arm64 defconfig and dts files. >> >> All your emails miss PATCH prefix. Use `git format-patch` to generate >> proper versioned patch. Stripping important part messes up with our >> filters. We have quite a lot of emails, so proper filtering is important. > > My bad...excitement of sending the patch series got hold of me :) Now I have realized > it is been happening since the beginning. Since all the previous patches have been > sent without PATCH prefix, is it ok for this version as it is or do you want me to resend > with proper prefix? > It's okay for me, no need to resend. I just wanted to bring this to your attention, so future patchsets can be improved. Best regards, Krzysztof
