On Fri, 3 May 2024 08:36:38 -0400 Parker Newman <parker@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2 May 2024 21:01:54 +0300 > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 01:49:49PM -0400, Parker Newman wrote: > > > On Thu, 2 May 2024 20:22:47 +0300 > > > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 12:08:40PM -0400, Parker Newman wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 2 May 2024 19:01:01 +0300 > > > > > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 11:46:45AM -0400, Parker Newman wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, 2 May 2024 17:43:54 +0300 > > > > > > > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After a rework for CONNTECH was done, the driver may need a bit of > > > > > > > > love in order to become less verbose (in terms of indentation and > > > > > > > > code duplication) and hence easier to read. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This clean up series fixes a couple of (not so critical) issues and > > > > > > > > cleans up the recently added code. No functional change indented by > > > > > > > > the cleaning up part. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just an FYI I submitted a patch series that fixed several of these issues but I > > > > > > > think it fell through the cracks (I know everyone is very busy!). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-serial/cover.1713533298.git.pnewman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe my previous patch series is no longer required. This one fixes > > > > > > > everything. > > > > > > > > > > > > I haven't noticed that, if it contains duplicated patches, I may replace mine > > > > > > with yours if you insist. > > > > > > > > > > > > In any case it's better to reply there that you prefer this series to be > > > > > > applied, so Greg will not pick it up. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not have a preference. I am fine with using yours if it is easier on > > > > > the maintainers. > > > > > > > > Up to you, there is no issue to take your patches in case they are the same > > > > (or quite similar) as mine. I can pick them up, just tell me if you want this > > > > to happen with a list of the patches (as mail Message-Id). > > > > > > Just use yours. > > > > Okay, thanks! > > > > If you are going to test, better to pay attention to the BIT() conversion patch > > as Ilpo noted an issue. I believe it's easy to drop (via local git-rebase run) > > or move and test separately. > > > > I am working on testing now but patches 7 and 12 did not apply with git am. > Both failed around lines 1095/1096. > I can apply them manually but I may be using the wrong branch (tty-next). > Which branch/commit did you create your patches from? I don't see it in the > patch submission. I figured it out. git am was applying the typo fix patch out of order. Sorry, I didn't notice that. Patches should be fine. I can do a final test once you decide what to do with the BIT() conversion patch. Parker
