From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965729AbaLLKQB (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Dec 2014 05:16:01 -0500 Received: from smtprelay0049.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.49]:47482 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965640AbaLLKQA (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Dec 2014 05:16:00 -0500 X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,:::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1373:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1538:1593:1594:1711:1714:1730:1747:1777:1792:2194:2199:2393:2559:2562:2828:2895:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3351:3622:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:4321:5007:6119:6261:9108:10004:10400:10848:11232:11658:11914:12517:12519:12740:13069:13311:13357:21080,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0 X-HE-Tag: mint95_3439bb3e53052 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1500 Message-ID: <1418379357.18092.44.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/4] mfd: reorganize Intel drivers From: Joe Perches To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: Lee Jones , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mika Westerberg Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 02:15:57 -0800 In-Reply-To: <1418379009.17201.61.camel@linux.intel.com> References: <1418313236-10764-1-git-send-email-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <1418314017.18092.35.camel@perches.com> <1418379009.17201.61.camel@linux.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.7-0ubuntu1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 12:10 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, 2014-12-11 at 08:06 -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Thu, 2014-12-11 at 17:53 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > This patchset creates a new folder under drivers/mfd and moves there Intel > > > related drivers. > > > > Missing update of MAINTAINERS? > > Oh, right. I could send a follow up patch or update each patch in the > series. What is the best approach here? I think it'd be fine to send another patch later on if/after this is applied.