Hi, On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 2:49 AM Sheng-Liang Pan <sheng-liang.pan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 > > Thanks Krzysztof. > > Hi Douglas, > May I consult with you if you can accept we merge patch2 and patch3 together? I have no objection to merging patch #2 and patch #3 into one patch if that makes it better for Krzysztof. -Doug
