On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 09:32:24PM -0800, Ira Weiny wrote: > On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 05:16:54PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 03:53:10PM -0700, ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > The documentation for creating an auxiliary device is a 3 step not a 2 > > > step process. Specifically the requirements of setting the name, id, > > > dev.release, and dev.parent fields was not clear as a precursor to the '2 > > > step' process documented. > > > > > > Clarify by declaring this a 3 step process starting with setting the > > > fields of struct auxiliary_device correctly. > > > > > > Also add some sample code and tie the change into the rest of the > > > documentation. > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > --- > > > Changes from V1: > > > From Jonathan > > > Fix auxiliary spelling > > > --- > > > Documentation/driver-api/auxiliary_bus.rst | 77 +++++++++++++++++----- > > > 1 file changed, 59 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) > > > > Can you please resend the whole series, trying to just resend one patch > > in the middle is horrible for our tools and to try to figure this out. > > Sorry I did not realize this was an issue. Other maintainers have been ok with > this because I think B4 works fine with this? > > > > > Would you like to have to unwind this? Please make it simple for > > maintainers to review and if ok, apply your changes. > > Regardless, I was planning on resending this as part of the c files as you > requested before. Did you still want me to make that conversion? Yes. > Or I can resend this and make the c conversion as a follow on patch? That is up to you.
