Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] Upstreaming Pinephone Pro Patches

[Rudraksha Gupta <guptarud@gmail.com>]

Hi,


> Thanks for submitting these patches.  However, please expand the patch
> descriptions, because their current forms are too terse and, as such,
> simply not acceptable.  This applies to all patches in this series.

Gotcha, will do! I've added the testing that I did. From 
https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html

 > The text should be written in such detail so that when read weeks, 
months or even years later, it can give the reader the needed details to 
grasp the reasoning for why the patch was created.

It felt like saying more than "adding x sensor" seemed like adding fluff 
to me, so that is why I kept it short. Let me know if there is something 
else I should add beside the tests I have done.


> I'm also under impression that you're submitting these patches upstream
> blindly and without researching the rules that apply well enough, which
> may not be the best possible approach.

Sorry! I've read https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html 
a bunch of times during the years I have contributed to the Linux kernel 
and inevitably forget something. Please feel free to tell me what I've 
done wrong! I've corrected my mistakes in v4 (and undoubtedly probably 
introduced more, but feel free to tell me that ;) )


>
> Finally, please refrain yourself from sending multiple versions of the
> same patch series in the same day.  Doing so makes reviewing the patches
> unnecessarily hard. 

Sorry about that once again! I'm mostly a hobbyist that loves working on 
Linux over the weekend. I wanted to get correct my mistakes so that I 
can get reviews over the week. I wish lkml used a forge, so I didn't 
have to spam you, but I digress. I will keep this in mind moving forward.


Rudraksha