From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: a0393675@ti.com (Keerthy) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 21:51:38 +0530 Subject: [PATCH v7 0/5] mfd: tps65218: Clean ups In-Reply-To: <20160916133153.GB27974@sirena.org.uk> References: <1470833641-29546-1-git-send-email-j-keerthy@ti.com> <20160916133153.GB27974@sirena.org.uk> Message-ID: <0a30f210-0a23-0899-51b0-28f200ddd0a4@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Friday 16 September 2016 07:01 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 05:12:38PM +0530, Keerthy wrote: > >> Should i repost this series? I do not see this series in linux-next yet. > > 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 > on so unless there is some reason for urgency (like critical bug fixes) > please allow at least a couple of weeks for review. If there have been > review comments then people may be waiting for those to be addressed. I should have been clearer. The last Lee Jones conveyed that: "I can't take this series yet, since it relies on a change which was taken into Mark's Regulator tree" https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/8/31/312 So wanted to check if i needed to re-base/repost this series again. Sorry about the confusion i think that is because of $Subject goof up in the 0th patch of the series. > > 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 > directly if something has gone wrong you'll have to resend the patches > anyway, though there are some other maintainers who like them - if in > doubt look at how patches for the subsystem are normally handled. >