On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 6:37 PM Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@xxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2019-01-09 at 13:15 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 7:58 PM Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@xxxxx> wrote: > > > Also, the 01/15 patch has been added to allow the module to provide > > > a > > > reboot handler. Patch 15/15 depends on it. > > > > Isn't it a quite big distance between provider and consumer? > > Especially taking into consideration concerns about patch 1 which > > blocks the series. > > Perhaps you may drop it as a patch 1 and do something on top of patch > > 15 as feature extension? > > Yes, that is a good idea. I'll do so when I submit a new version of the > set (in few days' time). > > I think the battery part can be split from the EC part too. Would that > be a good idea to send them as separate patch sets next time? Yes, any independent porions can be send independently. It would speed up the review and applying process. > It seems > to me now that they probably ought to end up going in via different > trees (linux-power-supply vs linux-platform-drivers-x86). -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
