Jinjie, ruanjinjie@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on Fri, 30 Aug 2024 14:34:38 +0800: > On 2024/8/26 20:49, Miquel Raynal wrote: > > Hi Krzysztof, > > > > krzk@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on Mon, 26 Aug 2024 12:19:07 +0200: > > > >> On 26/08/2024 11:52, Miquel Raynal wrote: > >>> Hi Jinjie, > >>> > >>> ruanjinjie@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on Mon, 26 Aug 2024 17:43:18 +0800: > >>> > >>>> Use scoped for_each_available_child_of_node_scoped() when iterating over > >>>> device nodes to make code a bit simpler. > >>> > >>> Why is this a resend ? Did I miss a previous iteration? > >> > >> You were not cc-ed on previous iteration. I asked for proper split > >> between subsystems and sending to maintainers, thus this resend. > > > > Ok. Makes sense, and the patchset looks fine. > > Hi, Miquel, > > Could this series be merged, thank you! You've sent this series on Monday, we are Friday. I answered a first time within 5h and reviewed it within 8h. So that means I will take the patchset: - when I have the time to do so - after several days to give a chance to other to review it as well - unless someone speaks up against it in a "reasonable time frame" - unless a robot that parses the patches on the mailing lists complains about it (usually within few days, up to a week). In general, a good rule of thumb is to refrain yourself from pinging within 2 weeks for non-urgent matters like this series. Thanks, Miquèl
