On 03/02/2022 18:07, Verdun, Jean-Marie wrote: > > > Maybe it does not look like, but this is actually a v2. Nick was asked > > to change the naming for the nodes already in v1. Unfortunately it did > > not happen, so we have vuart, spifi, vic and more. > > > It is a waste of reviewers' time to ask them to perform the same review > > twice or to ignore their comments. > > Hi Krysztof, > > Accept our apologies if you think you lose your time, it is clearly not our > intent. > > This is the first time that we (I mean the team) introduce a new arch into > the linux kernel and I must admit that we had hard time to understand > from which angle we needed to start. > > I will probably write a Documentation afterward, as it is easy to find doc > on how to introduce a patch or a driver, but not when you want to > introduce a new chip. > > We are trying to do our best, and clearly want to follow all of your inputs. > Mistakes happen and they are clearly not intentional and not driven in > a way to make you lose your time. > > Helping others, and teaching something new is definitely a way to > optimize your time and this is what you are currently doing with us. > > We appreciate it and hope you will too. I understand, I also maybe over-reacted on this. Just please go through the comments you got for first submission and either apply them or respond why you disagree. The next submissions (patchset split into several commits) should be a v3, preferably with cover letter (git format-patch --cover-letter -v3 ...) where you can document also changes you did to the patchset. It looks for example like this: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-samsung-soc/31da451b-a36c-74fb-5667-d4193284c6cd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#mf98d2ac27a8481dc69dd110f9861c8318cade252 or like this (where changelogs are in each patch, although ordering is not correct because dt-bindings should be the first in the series): https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220103233948.198119-1-Mr.Bossman075@xxxxxxxxx/ Best regards, Krzysztof
