* Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel.garcia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [130212 10:29]: > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 09:12:53AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > * Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@xxxxxx> [130212 08:36]: > > > > > > On 02/12/2013 09:18 AM, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > > > > This patchset is v2 of the small cleanup consisting in: > > > > * mark some functions as 'static' when appropriate > > > > * remove an unused function from gpmc.c > > > > * improve error messages when a CS request fails > > > > * migrate to dev_err and dev_warn > > > > > > > > Changelog from v1: > > > > * fix gpmc_cs_reserved to return a boolean instead > > > > of an integer error code > > > > * add a new patch to the patchset cleaning redundant checks > > > > > > > > It has been tested on a IGEP v2 board with OneNAND, > > > > which means the gpmc-nand patch is tested by compilation only. > > > > > > > > Altough these patchset is almost trivial, > > > > any feedback or testing is more than welcome. > > > > > > > > Ezequiel Garcia (8): > > > > ARM: omap2: gpmc: Mark local scoped functions static > > > > ARM: omap2: gpmc: Remove unused gpmc_round_ns_to_ticks() function > > > > ARM: omap2: gpmc: Fix gpmc_cs_reserved() return value > > > > ARM: omap2: gpmc-nand: Print something useful on CS request failure > > > > ARM: omap2: gpmc-onenand: Print something useful on CS request failure > > > > ARM: omap2: gpmc-onenand: Replace pr_err() with dev_err() > > > > ARM: omap2: gpmc-onenand: Replace printk KERN_ERR with dev_warn() > > > > ARM: omap2: gpmc: Remove redundant chip select out of range check > > > > > > > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc-nand.c | 3 ++- > > > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc-onenand.c | 8 +++++--- > > > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.c | 27 ++++++--------------------- > > > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.h | 7 ------- > > > > 4 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-) > > > > > > Looks good to me. I noticed that for some patches there is no changelog > > > and I understand that that is because they are some what trivial > > > clean-ups and the subject explains the patch. However, typically it is > > > good to have a changelog in the patch no matter how trivial it is. Tony > > > may ask you to add a changelog. Otherwise ... > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@xxxxxx> > > > > Yes please add a changelog. > > > > Patches with no changelog have no changelog ;-) > > My usual workflow is to re-send a whole series, and only > add a changelog to the ones that actually change. > For instance, for this patchset, the only one that actually changed > is "ARM: omap2: gpmc: Fix gpmc_cs_reserved() return value". > > The rest is just the same it was in v1. > > I like to do it this way, because I think it keeps the patches > together, and I hope I make maintainers life easier; of course, > I might be wrong. > > So, should I use a different workflow and send only the patches > that change with new versions? Sorry I think there's a misunderstanding here.. Jon and I mean that each patch should have a description in addition to the Subject line even if a trival patch :) Regards, Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
