From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
To: Liam Girdwood <lg@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Voltage and current regulator framework
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:24:51 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080215152451.GL1178@uranus.ravnborg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1203084641.3466.210.camel@localhost.localdomain>
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 02:10:41PM +0000, Liam Girdwood wrote:
> This patch series provides a generic framework to allow device drivers
> to control voltage and current regulators on SoC based devices (e.g.
> phones, gps, media players).
>
> The intention is to allow systems to dynamically control regulator
> output in order to save power and prolong battery life. This applies to
> both voltage regulators (where voltage output is controllable) and
> current sinks (where current output is controllable).
>
> The framework is designed around SoC based devices but may also be
> relevant to non SoC devices. It's also been designed against two Power
> Management ICs (PMICs) currently on the market - namely the Freescale
> MC13783 and the Wolfson WM8350. However it is quite generic and should
> apply to all PMICs.
General comments related to your patch submission - not to the code.
- Each patch should have a descriptive subject for the said patch.
The headlines you use below looks fine for this.
- Tag each subject with name of the framework so it is obvious
they belong to the same area.
Note that the numbers will be lost when the patches are applied to git.
- Each patch should contain a description of what it contains
and why it is needed.
You seem to have it written but it is 'hidden' in the 0/4
mail that will not go into git - so the info is hard to find when
the patches goes in.
- Each patch should contain a diffstat before the actual patch so
it is obvious what is touched by the patch.
- The patches should not break the build.
As your patches did not include any Makefile / Kconfig fragments
I gues you have no issues here.
It is typical to split up patches like you have done and apply
the MAkefile/Kconfig bits as the final patch to make sure the kernel
continue to build.
Sam
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-02-15 15:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-02-15 14:10 [PATCH 0/4] Voltage and current regulator framework Liam Girdwood
2008-02-15 15:24 ` Sam Ravnborg [this message]
2008-02-15 15:27 ` Sam Ravnborg
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080215152451.GL1178@uranus.ravnborg.org \
--to=sam@ravnborg.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=lg@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.