Judy, On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 8:36 AM Judy Hsiao <judyhsiao@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Put sound node and lpass_cpu node settings for boards that use rt5682 > codec in the sc7280-herobrine-audio-rt5682.dtsi as there are different > choices of headset codec for herobrine projects. Common audio setting > for the internal speaker is in sc7280-herobrine.dtsi. > > Change Since V4 > - Rebase and include sc7280-herobrine-villager-r0.dts change. > > Changes Since V3: > - Remove Change-Id in the commit message. > - Add dependency in cover letter. > > Changes Since V2: > - Fix sc7280-herobrine-audio-rt5682.dtsi syntax. > > Changes Since V1: > - Not to include the herobrine-villager-r0.dts changes in this patch > series to avoid conflict. > > Judy Hsiao (3): > arm64: dts: qcom: sc7280: herobrine: Add pinconf settings for mi2s1 > arm64: dts: qcom: sc7280: Add sc7280-herobrine-audio-rt5682.dtsi > arm64: dts: qcom: sc7280: Include sc7280-herobrine-audio-rt5682.dtsi > in herobrine-r1 and villager-r0 > > .../qcom/sc7280-herobrine-audio-rt5682.dtsi | 122 ++++++++++++++++++ > .../qcom/sc7280-herobrine-herobrine-r1.dts | 1 + > .../dts/qcom/sc7280-herobrine-villager-r0.dts | 1 + > .../arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280-herobrine.dtsi | 30 +++++ > 4 files changed, 154 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280-herobrine-audio-rt5682.dtsi Your two posts today were a bit confusing. You really need something in the explaining what's going on. Specifically: 1. You posted a "v5" upstream a week ago [1]. 2. Then you posted another "v5" [2] today. 3. Finally, you posted this "v5" [3] today. They are all marked "v5" and there's nothing to explain why there are 3 versions of v5. -- Better would have been: a) Use some type of "prefix" in the subject line to help people understand that the contents are the same as the previous "v5" patch and this is just a new posting. Usually people will use "REPOST" or "RESEND". So, for instance, the subject line for your cover letter could have been "[RESEND PATCH v5 0/3] Add dtsi for sc7280 boards that using rt5682". All of the individual patches would have also had the "RESEND" in their subject. b) You should explain somewhere _why_ you're re-sending the patches. If you've got a cover letter (like you do), the cover letter is the perfect place to explain why you're resending the patch. If you didn't have a cover letter, you can explain "after the cut". Brian's patch [4] is a great example of this. He has both the hint in the subject line and an explanation: "Resending, because I missed the mailing lists on the first version." -- In your case, I assume you were trying to get Bjorn's email address correct as I requested a week ago. Thus, I would have expected your first patch from today [2] to say something like "I'm resending patch v5 to get Bjorn's email address correct. Other than that this is exactly the same as the previous v5". Then, I would have expected your second patch from today [3] to say something like "Oops, I still didn't get Bjorn's email address right in the earlier patch today. Trying yet again. Contents of all of the v5 patches are identical" -- In any case, I'm not expecting you to send yet-another v5, but hopefully: * This explains to Bjorn what's going on this time. * You'll know better for next time. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220923140918.2825043-1-judyhsiao@xxxxxxxxxxxx [2] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220930152613.2018360-1-judyhsiao@xxxxxxxxxxxx [3] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220930153643.2018907-1-judyhsiao@xxxxxxxxxxxx [4] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210907094628.RESEND.1.If29cd838efbcee4450a62b8d84a99b23c86e0a3f@changeid/
