Hi, On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 8:28 PM, Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy Natarajan > <sathyaosid@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 6:00 AM, Andy Shevchenko >> <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 1:37 AM, >>> <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> From: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> PMIC mfd driver only exports first level irq for thermal device. >>>> But currently we are reading the irqs from the second level irq >>>> chip, So this patch fixes this issue by adding support to use >>>> first level PMIC thermal irq. >>>> >>> >>> Shouldn't be this squashed to patch 2? >> >> There is no compilation dependency between patch 2 and 3. But they are >> functionally dependent. >> >> Should we squash functionally dependent patches too ? > > Let's assume we applied patches 1 and 2, does it mean the regression > to the existing behaviour? Yes, Just applying patch 1 & 2 and not apply patch 3 will create regression in thermal driver. Since there is no compilation dependency between patch 2 & 3 and they are from two different domains, I submitted them separately to make it easier for review. > > (For example, device worked improperly in some cases -> stopped > working completely) > > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko -- Sathya -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
