Re: [PATCH v13 00/11] Support ROHM BD71828 PMIC

[Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>]

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020, Vaittinen, Matti wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-01-20 at 13:54 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 03:40:20PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> > > Patch series introducing support for ROHM BD71828 PMIC
> > > 
> > > ROHM BD71828 is a power management IC containing 7 bucks and 7
> > > LDOs. All
> > > regulators can be controlled individually via I2C. Bucks 1,2,6 and
> > > 7 can also be assigned to a "regulator group" controlled by run-
> > > levels.
> > 
> > This is the *third* version of this you've sent today alone.  Please
> > stop sending me this series until the MFD has been merged, perhaps
> > just
> > drop the subsystem patches while you resolve whatever the problems
> > are
> > that remain with the MFD?  I'm pretty much just deleting these
> > patches
> > without even looking at them at this point, it's a large series, it's
> > getting huge numbers of resends and I don't think any version I've
> > had a
> > chance to look at before it got resent had a change in the one
> > regulator
> > patch that'd cause me to have to re-review it.

To be fair, yours is one of the reviews we're waiting for!

See [PATCH 03/11].

> Sorry Mark (and all). I guess this is annoying. Why I do resend whole
> series is that during the bd71837 work Lee instructed me to always
> resend whole series - not just the changed patches.

Which in general is the correct thing to do.  Having a large threaded
series on the list containing in the form of subsequent
versions gets real confusing real quick:

| [PATCH v2 01/05]
| > [PATCH v3 01/05]
| [PATCH v2 02/05]
| > [PATCH v3 02/05]
| -> [PATCH v4 02/05]
| [PATCH v2 03/05]
| [PATCH v2 04/05]
| > [PATCH v3 04/05]
| [PATCH v2 05/05]
| > [PATCH v3 05/05]
| -> [PATCH v4 05/05]
| --> [PATCH v5 05/05]
| ---> [PATCH v6 05/05]

However, you should wait for a suitable period per submission, to give
each maintainer a chance to review the patches they are responsible
for.

> I sure can learn and drop some of the recipients in the future - and
> actually I did for this last resend. Reason why you are in the
> recipients is that Lee asked me to get your ack for patch 3/11. Same
> goes with Stephen.
> 
> Linus is involved as Lee asked me to get his ack for patch 11.
> 
> But resending this series 3 times today is really my fault. (Well, of
> course, I did send this and no one else). I messed up the previous
> series.
> 
> I was hoping the revision history in cover letter would be a fast way
> to determine if something relevant has changed. Additionally, I did try
> to include statement that "no changes" in the beginning of each patches
> for most of the versions. (for versions up-to 11 - this was omitted
> from v12 and v13 which only did very specific changes).
> 
> But sure, I should try to be more careful so that I don't need to do so
> many resends - and I really could drop most of the recipients earlier.
> Thanks for pointing it out.

If dropping recipients is your tactic of choice (I wouldn't choose to
do that myself), just ensure you keep everyone on Cc for the
cover-letter ("[PATCH 00/00]") and maybe indicate the fact that they
have been dropped and why ("dropped Lee since the MFD patches have
been reviewed and are unchanged in this series").  Reason being;
if/when a set is applied, the cover-letter is used as the Reply-to
for sending out the pull-request to all those concerned.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog