From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/2] regulator: bd9571mwv: Add support for toggle power switches Date: Sun, 13 May 2018 11:27:26 +0900 Message-ID: <20180513022726.GI949@sirena.org.uk> References: <1521026785-26456-1-git-send-email-geert+renesas@glider.be> <20180418140041.GD10061@sirena.org.uk> <20180419201356.GC25034@amd> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="2xeD/fx0+7k8I/QN" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180419201356.GC25034@amd> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Pavel Machek Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Len Brown , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Marek Vasut , Liam Girdwood , Linux PM list , Linux-Renesas , Linux Kernel Mailing List List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org --2xeD/fx0+7k8I/QN Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:13:56PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Wed 2018-04-18 15:00:41, Mark Brown wrote: > > Please don't send content free pings and please allow a reasonable time > > for review. People get busy, go on holiday, attend conferences and so= =20 > If I follow the logs right, there was one month before ping. That > seems pretty reasonable time. Right, but the content free bit still applies (as does the bit about resending which is the main actionable bit for people). The two go hand in hand so often that I just wrote the one thing for both. > > Sending content free pings adds to the mail volume (if they are seen at > > all) which is often the problem and since they can't be reviewed > Yep, and sending content free complains about pings also adds to the > main volume :-(. They're not content free. They're telling people that if it looks like their patch has fallen through the cracks then they need to resend their patch and why, without that people (especially newer contributors) might not be clear about what to do. > Anyway, last time I sent you a patch... you _had_ time to complain > that I'm pinging too often, but you apparently did not have time to > look at the patch. That patch would have been in time for v4.16-rc1 > IIRC. If that's the tlv320dac33 patch you sent a followup in the middle of the thread with what you said was a current version or something but never actually sent that version as a regular patch submission. You'd also managed to not have the ASoC on the front of the patch which pushes it to the bottom of the review queue, it won't turn up when I look in in my inbox for ASoC patches. Now, I for whatever reason didn't explicitly tell you I was expecting a resend so you didn't explicitly know that this was what was going on which is a good example of why letting people know what's going on is a good idea. --2xeD/fx0+7k8I/QN Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAlr3oo0ACgkQJNaLcl1U h9CS8wf6ApsNWMYuWBEkqkstpUS9gBhwblIChDzGTN9pCR+q3NecEWlBqFCQpk7q LtjULLle6h9CJAh2+ECSLHkaLAVT5Gh1aTU6YcvGabU37dqUUMdLx7cCFetfSWX9 XmRedqvm6O1KsSrr4zCg9jUNZakjRg1A7mw1+nvsQKHlxuecx5514I8L8n5A2Is9 M8UDI+TtaDJMZzmQWoK8/2Z5lkI1krrDXAH5zLhpEmJaV7vwNI9kCFmP/E9Sxswg 99nh4mdin2w5j0akKNCariNLv3FmaVAVbEMtp+cv8NnyaMvAgkjpfZMtRF1wB6T/ A8DkJ+qqVEebHes1voGfo1JxwePDdg== =f9+n -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --2xeD/fx0+7k8I/QN--