On 06/11/19 12:54 PM, Tudor.Ambarus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > On 11/05/2019 02:37 PM, Vignesh Raghavendra wrote: >> On 02/11/19 4:53 PM, Tudor.Ambarus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>> From: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> Demystify where the EIO error occurs. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >> I think this is a small enough change that can be squashed into previous >> patch itself >> > > I made separate patches because this is a separate logical change. The previous > patch extends the check on all bits of the Status Register, while this one > prints a debug message in case of EIO. Thus I tried to have a single logical > change contained in a single patch. I'm clearly no expert in this (Boris asked > me in v3 to split patches because I did too many things in one patch :) ), so I > would keep this as is, but if you still feel that it should be squashed, then > I'll do it. Please let me know. > I am fine either way. I don't have a strong preference... -- Regards Vignesh ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/