On 25.02.2022 10:25, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 11:56:12AM +0100, Tomasz Moń wrote: >> sc16is7xx driver assumes that the device handles hardware flow control >> automatically. This is not really true as the driver does inadvertently >> clear the bits that enable hardware flow control. >> >> This patch series solves multiple issues present in the driver. While >> the patches are fairly independent, there are some dependencies. The >> "sc16is7xx: Properly resume TX after stop" adds IER bit set function >> that is later used in "sc16is7xx: Set AUTOCTS and AUTORTS bits". Also >> the patches that control which interrupts are enabled are dependent on >> each other. >> >> Patches should be applied respecting the order in the series. The whole >> series applies on top of "sc16is7xx: Fix for incorrect data being >> transmitted" [1]. > > The first 3 patches of this series applied. Please rebase and resend > the remaining. The remaining patches did not apply because the "sc16is7xx: Fix for incorrect data being transmitted" by Phil Elwell was not applied. The Phil Elwell patch was independently developed and made it to the list before I sent the patch series. For that reason I based the series on top of that patch and mentioned it in the cover letter. I am unsure what is the correct method when handling such situations. Should I include the Phil Elwell patch when resending the patch series? Best Regards, Tomasz Mon
