My apologies, this is my first attempt to submit a patch to the kernel community. > We've asked you repeatedly whether you for u-blox or not, but you keep > ignoring this question. Knowing this would allow us to better evaluate > the reasoning and motivation behind this this change. Yes, i am a u-blox employee and i've been asked to integrate LARA-L6 in the linux kernel and update the current code for LARA-R6 00B (updating the PID from 0x90fa to 0x908b). > The above commit message still does not explain why you want to remove > it and whether it would be safe to do so. Why was added in the first > place? What u-blox products used the old PID? The first prototype of LARA-R6 00B had 0x90fa PID but, just before the product finalization, it has been decided to adopt a new USB composition and consequently a change of PID was necessary. The 0x90fa PID has been used only for some internal prototypes, hence no u-blox products with that PID have been shipped to customers. As pointed out in the discussion, the 0x90fa PID is used by other module vendors which sell Qualcomm based modems, hence i proposed to remove the association between u-blox (thedefine UBLOX_PRODUCT_R6XX) and 0x90fa, moving it directly in the option_ids array. > By just removing the define this is less of an issue, but you should > not make the life of reviewers harder by ignoring request to properly > motivate your changes and explain why they are safe to apply. My apologies again, thanks for the patience. > You can either put a shared changelog for the whole series in a cover > letter, or you describe changes to each individual patch. But mixing the > two styles as you do in this entry is just confusing. Thanks for the suggestions. In order to simplify the submission process, i propose to split the submission for the LARA-L6 patches and the update for LARA-R6 00B. Do you think could it be feasible? Davide
