On Tue, 12 Jan 2016, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > >> Do you request that I should resend my four update suggestions > >> for different components as a single patch series for the software > >> area "drivers/mfd"? > > > > You have to make that decision yourself. > > I chose on 2015-12-29 to send them in the combination you see. That was not a good choice. > > What I'm saying is, if the cover letter says there are 2 patches > > These refer to the component "smsc-ece1099". That's fine. Then there should have been 2 patches in the set. But then to attach 2 unrelated patches to the set is not fine. They should have either been submitted as part of the set i.e. 0/4 or completely separately. > > in the set, that's what we should expect. > > Can changes for the components "dm355evm_msp" and "twl-core" > be clarified independently? Yes, or together would have also been fine. The only think that is not okay is to submit a set of 2 patches, then to "bolt-on" another 2 for some reason. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
