On 11/08/2023 05:46, Sheng-Liang Pan wrote: > From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> > > On 10/08/2023 11:30, Sheng-Liang Pan wrote: >>> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>>> Isn't this duplicated with r9? Probably other places as well... or.... >>>> separate r10 add rt5682s node which different with r9. >>> we separate r10 add rt5682s which differentwith r9 >>> >>> >>>>> - model = "Google Lazor Limozeen without Touchscreen (rev9+)"; >>>>> - compatible = "google,lazor-sku6", "google,lazor-sku18", "qcom,sc7180"; >>>>> + model = "Google Lazor Limozeen without Touchscreen (rev9)"; >>>>> + compatible = "google,lazor-rev9-sku6", "google,lazor-rev9-sku18", "qcom,sc7180"; >>> >>>> Your patch 2 does not make any sense. Didn't you touch it in patch 2? >>>> Really, what is happening here? >>> patch 2 explain why we added new sku for no-eSIM. >> >> So which commit explain why you touch the same line twice? Sorry, this >> does not make sense. >> >> Best regards, >> Krzysztof > > We sort patch by change order, > fist request for non-eSIM, patch2 add new sku 10, 15 for non-eSIM, and 18, but keep the newset reversion is r9, > after add non-eSIM SKU, a sencond request for ALC5682i-VS, > so continue patch2 we upreversion r10 which include rt5682s node. I barely can parse it, but anyway does not look right. You explained what you are doing but it does not explain why touching the same line twice. There is no point in making one board new SKU, but then immediately change it to something else. The previous commit is just no-op. Best regards, Krzysztof
