(reduced direct addressees, though still on lists)
On 5/22/19 11:42 PM, Schrempf Frieder wrote:
On 23.05.19 00:05, Jeff Kletsky wrote:
From: Jeff Kletsky <git-commits@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
The GigaDevice GD5F1GQ4UFxxG SPI NAND is in current production devices
and, while it has the same logical layout as the E-series devices,
it differs in the SPI interfacing in significant ways.
This support is contingent on previous commits to:
* Add support for two-byte device IDs
* Define macros for page-read ops with three-byte addresses
http://www.gigadevice.com/datasheet/gd5f1gq4xfxxg/
Signed-off-by: Jeff Kletsky <git-commits@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Frieder Schrempf <frieder.schrempf@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reported-by: kbuild test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>
I dont't think that this Reported-by tag should be used here. The bot
reported build errors caused by your patch and you fixed it in a new
version. As far as I understand this tag, it references someone who
reported a flaw/bug that led to this change in the first place.
The version history of the changes won't be visible in the git history
later, but the tag will be and would be rather confusing.
Thank you for your patience and explanations. I've been being conservative
as I'm not a "seasoned, Linux professional" and am still getting my
git send-email config / command line for Linux properly straightened out.
Should I send another patch set with the `kbuild...` tag removed,
or would it be removed in the process of an appropriate member
of the Linux MTD team adding their tag for approval, if and when
that happens?
Jeff
______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/
