On 06/11/19 1:09 PM, Vignesh Raghavendra wrote: > > > 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... > If you want to keep these separate: Reviewed-by: Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@xxxxxx> Regards Vignesh ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/