[GIT PULL RESEND] pxa for v3.20

[olof@lixom.net (Olof Johansson)]

On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 03:18:11PM +0100, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
> Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> writes:
> 
> > Hi Robert,
> >
> > Branch looks good, I'll merge this into next/fixes-non-critical. One nit below
> > though:
> >
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov (3):
> >>       ARM: pxa: add regulator_has_full_constraints to corgi board file
> >>       ARM: pxa: add regulator_has_full_constraints to poodle board file
> >>       ARM: pxa: add regulator_has_full_constraints to spitz board file
> >> 
> >> Martin Vajnar (1):
> >>       hx4700: regulator: declare full constraints
> >
> > Please use consistent patch subjects in the future. We've ended up using ARM:
> > <platform>: <foo> across all platforms these days.
> >
> > I'm not going to ask you to respin just for this, but please remember to fix
> > future patches when you apply them if they're not already correct.
> You're right, I missed that one.
> 
> In case you've not already pulled, I created :
>    https://github.com/rjarzmik/linux.git tags/pxa-for-3.20-bis
> 
> I can resend a proper pull request if you wish, or we can leave it as is if you
> already pulled. In any case I'll be more carefull next time, maybe I can
> convince my bot to check that for me too.

I had already merged, but it looks like you broke viper and zeus. Both of them
still refer to PXA_ISA_IRQ().

Can you send an incremental patch for that? Or if you prefer that we drop this
branch for now while you sort it out that's OK too -- your preference.

> Or even better checkpatch could check that any patch with a diffstat fully in
> arch/arm/{mach,plat}-<XYZ> has a subject beginning with "ARM: XYZ: ", that would
> be cool, and put the burden on others as well :)

Yeah we normally scale this by educating downstream maintainers. checkpatch is
useful in many cases but making it do everything is hard.


-Olof