From: lee.jones@linaro.org (Lee Jones) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 13:58:12 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/1] ASoC: codecs: Enable AB8500 CODEC for Device Tree In-Reply-To: <20120821123951.GC7995@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <1344527268-5964-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <1344527268-5964-9-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <20120820113427.GN8450@gmail.com> <20120820143653.GE26991@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20120821115123.GE26899@gmail.com> <20120821123951.GC7995@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Message-ID: <20120821125811.GA931@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 01:39:51PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:51:24PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 03:36:53PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > > From: Lee Jones > > > > Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 08:50:05 +0100 > > > > Please resend this series with all the acks you've got rather than > > > mixing incremental updates in like this. > > > I'm waiting until I have a few more Acks before I resend the entire > > patch-set again. Actually it's you and one other that I'm waiting for > > to review (and Ack as necessary) the ones requested by Linus, then > > resend with the corrections. > > Well, I'm the person who's going to apply the patches so I'm unlikely > to ack them... I was waiting for arch/arm review before I looked at I have all of Linus' Acks. The only ones missing are yours and Ola's, but I think Ola is on vacation still, so he's asked Roger to do it. I don't know if you saw, but Linus has placed lots of Acked-by's which are dependent on your say-so, hence why I was waiting for your response. > them due to the number of resends. Bingo, thus why I was dubious about resending the entire patch-set too prematurely. > > > Please also send patches in > > > the format documented in SubmittingPatches. > > > That's a big document, most of which I guess I'm adhering to. Care to > > be a little more specific? > > The bit I quoted is the main example, you're including random mail > headers in the body of the mail. They're not mail headers per-say, they're `git format-patch` headers. I thought this was acceptable for single patches, hence why I've done it lots of times and had no complaints (until now). If there are some changes required in a single patch, I usually fix it up, create a patch with `git format-patch` and send it as a reply to either the original patch in the series or the mail containing the suggestion. If this is wrong please educate me as I thought this was acceptable, as I thought it would be less pain than sending the entire patch-set again for just one change? -- Lee Jones Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog