From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergei Shtylyov Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:52:22 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/9] Reorganize R8A7779/Marzen USB code Message-Id: <517578D6.2050409@cogentembedded.com> List-Id: References: <201304200155.13492.sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com> <20130422145122.GQ14496@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20130422145122.GQ14496@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Hello. Hello. On 04/22/2013 06:51 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > >> Hello. >> >> Here's the set of 9 patches against the Simon Horman's 'renesas.git' repo, >> 'renesas-next-20130419' tag. It was created to fix the shortcomings in the >> R8A7779/Marzen USB platform code and R8A7779 USB common PHY driver, and so >> spans both arch/arm/mach-shmobile/ and drivers/usb/ subtrees (some patches have >> to touch both subtrees). The patches were conceived with the complete >> bisectability goal in mind. >> >> [1/9] ARM: shmobile: Marzen: move USB EHCI, OHCI, and PHY devices to R8A7779 code >> [2/9] ehci-platform: add pre_setup() method to platform data >> [3/9] ARM: shmobile: r8a7779: setup EHCI internal buffer >> [4/9] rcar-phy: remove EHCI internal buffer setup >> [5/9] ARM: shmobile: r8a7779: remove USB PHY 2nd memory resource >> [6/9] rcar-phy: correct base address >> [7/9] rcar-phy: add platform data >> [8/9] ARM: shmobile: Marzen: pass platform data to USB PHY device >> [9/9] rcar-phy: handle platform data > Please can you rethink how you use get_maintainers.pl and send out > patches? > > Sending them "To" everyone who get_maintainers.pl spits out is all well > and good, but it means that there's no discrimination between those who > have a primary interest in the patches and those who don't. Heh, yet I completely ignore the "commit signers" list that it has a habit to spitting out. :-) > Examples of people with a primary interest: those maintaining the > platforms and/or those who you want to merge your patches. These > should be on the To: line. > > Those who don't: everyone else who may have an interest - these go on > the Cc: line. > > You're about the only person I regularly get patches for platforms which > are sent To: me all the time, and really they are not "important" for > me (though they are important enough for me to be Cc'd). OK, I'll try to make this distinction in the future. I just didn't think the difference between To: and Cc: was really that important to anyone. > What I'm saying is that having come back from a vacation last Tuesday, > I could not just scan through this mailbox for all messages marked "To" > me and treat those as being more important than everything else, because > soo many of yours were captured by that. And I'm still tacking the > backlog today, almost a week later. Sorry about that. > Please be more considerate to those who you're mailing. > > (Also, make sure you don't honor the Mail-Followup-To: header, which > will lead your mailer to keep placing all recipients into the To: > header on reply - because it breaks the above reasoning. The To: > header should be those recipients who you are directly discussing, and > Cc: is for "interested side parties".) That would be somewhat tougher, as I'm usually quick to hit the send button after completing the email, so can forget to change people from To: list to CC: list... but I'll have to promise to try to give it more attention from now on. > Thanks. WBR, Sergei From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com (Sergei Shtylyov) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 21:52:22 +0400 Subject: [PATCH v5 0/9] Reorganize R8A7779/Marzen USB code In-Reply-To: <20130422145122.GQ14496@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <201304200155.13492.sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com> <20130422145122.GQ14496@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <517578D6.2050409@cogentembedded.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hello. Hello. On 04/22/2013 06:51 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > >> Hello. >> >> Here's the set of 9 patches against the Simon Horman's 'renesas.git' repo, >> 'renesas-next-20130419' tag. It was created to fix the shortcomings in the >> R8A7779/Marzen USB platform code and R8A7779 USB common PHY driver, and so >> spans both arch/arm/mach-shmobile/ and drivers/usb/ subtrees (some patches have >> to touch both subtrees). The patches were conceived with the complete >> bisectability goal in mind. >> >> [1/9] ARM: shmobile: Marzen: move USB EHCI, OHCI, and PHY devices to R8A7779 code >> [2/9] ehci-platform: add pre_setup() method to platform data >> [3/9] ARM: shmobile: r8a7779: setup EHCI internal buffer >> [4/9] rcar-phy: remove EHCI internal buffer setup >> [5/9] ARM: shmobile: r8a7779: remove USB PHY 2nd memory resource >> [6/9] rcar-phy: correct base address >> [7/9] rcar-phy: add platform data >> [8/9] ARM: shmobile: Marzen: pass platform data to USB PHY device >> [9/9] rcar-phy: handle platform data > Please can you rethink how you use get_maintainers.pl and send out > patches? > > Sending them "To" everyone who get_maintainers.pl spits out is all well > and good, but it means that there's no discrimination between those who > have a primary interest in the patches and those who don't. Heh, yet I completely ignore the "commit signers" list that it has a habit to spitting out. :-) > Examples of people with a primary interest: those maintaining the > platforms and/or those who you want to merge your patches. These > should be on the To: line. > > Those who don't: everyone else who may have an interest - these go on > the Cc: line. > > You're about the only person I regularly get patches for platforms which > are sent To: me all the time, and really they are not "important" for > me (though they are important enough for me to be Cc'd). OK, I'll try to make this distinction in the future. I just didn't think the difference between To: and Cc: was really that important to anyone. > What I'm saying is that having come back from a vacation last Tuesday, > I could not just scan through this mailbox for all messages marked "To" > me and treat those as being more important than everything else, because > soo many of yours were captured by that. And I'm still tacking the > backlog today, almost a week later. Sorry about that. > Please be more considerate to those who you're mailing. > > (Also, make sure you don't honor the Mail-Followup-To: header, which > will lead your mailer to keep placing all recipients into the To: > header on reply - because it breaks the above reasoning. The To: > header should be those recipients who you are directly discussing, and > Cc: is for "interested side parties".) That would be somewhat tougher, as I'm usually quick to hit the send button after completing the email, so can forget to change people from To: list to CC: list... but I'll have to promise to try to give it more attention from now on. > Thanks. WBR, Sergei