On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 05:37:41PM +0200, Olliver Schinagl wrote: > Hey Jon, > > On March 30, 2017 3:42:19 PM CEST, Jon Hunter <jonathanh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >On 29/03/17 19:48, Olliver Schinagl wrote: > >> The tegra serial IP seems to be following the common layout and the > >> interrupt ID's match up nicely. Replace the magic values to match the > >> common serial_reg defines, with the addition of the Tegra unique End > >of > >> Data interrupt. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Olliver Schinagl <oliver@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> Note I do not own any tegra hardware and just noticed it while > >working on my > >> somewhat related previous patch, > >> "serial: Do not treat the IIR register as a bitfield" > >> > >> As such, this patch can only be applied after the aforementioned > >patch or the > >> iir variable will not have its mask applied yet. > > > >Nit-pick. If this is the case, then this should really be part of a > >patch series so it is obvious to everyone that this should only be > >applied after the other patch. > Yes, and it was, but I did not want to have the really big list of names in this much smaller group. Ok, this is a mess, don't send me patches that need to be applied in a specific order, yet are not obviously linked together in a single series. How do you expect a maintainer to handle this type of stuff? You need to make it _OBVIOUS_ as to what I need to do here, otherwise I will get it wrong. I'm going to drop all of your patches from my queue and wait for a resend with the correct order, and ones that work properly, you can do better than this :) thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
