From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-15.pe-b.jellyfish.systems (out-15.pe-b.jellyfish.systems [198.54.127.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CA3F24A050; Wed, 5 Mar 2025 13:11:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.54.127.81 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741180285; cv=none; b=kKLdAm00+QzKgY+aPkhOOMGbkOEPGAEg31z4+lSHXVXRJFi28/ctx8HQByRi+JU0p09fuukNd0AQ9iJ+MRxrbiiBzoKEw3gy4dK21Qj1dIeOkQr2OVf46qSr+QY1NbG0OxLBKh3RZFkg4/WGCHifCI7Bdk+FCoKrPnOjdmu+qlI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1741180285; c=relaxed/simple; bh=bn2SYnO3gckSd90IJUDXZ+6sjtoSbjkeP7cZhFpzYOA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=uwcUtHCPUCtF564fPDPVHsDIw8aI74gS5oWpPrFs3W5XGQ1beVa1GFZmPXPcJ2b0LjnyL808N8NSTALrQlEE/msohPRZt0MBNMxTXEC9Cf2gojQ44RrGJUN6lWRZK2lXLeu445icWYqPIyrh3AiWGWneBStCor4GcrBRLkJdFYI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=framepointer.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=framepointer.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=framepointer.org header.i=@framepointer.org header.b=e9S6GSgm; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.54.127.81 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=framepointer.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=framepointer.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=framepointer.org header.i=@framepointer.org header.b="e9S6GSgm" Received: from prod-lbout-phx.jellyfish.systems (new-01.privateemail.com [198.54.118.220]) by pe-b.jellyfish.systems (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4Z7CcB6stszDqTW; Wed, 05 Mar 2025 13:11:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from MTA-14.privateemail.com (unknown [10.50.14.30]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by NEW-01.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Z7CcB4sBvz3hhVZ; Wed, 5 Mar 2025 08:11:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from mta-14.privateemail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mta-14.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Z7CcB4Sszz3hhZ8; Wed, 5 Mar 2025 08:11:22 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=framepointer.org; s=default; t=1741180282; bh=bn2SYnO3gckSd90IJUDXZ+6sjtoSbjkeP7cZhFpzYOA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=e9S6GSgm7JoUjS1VL9RQgTn6qPKd0B5YU9b0I5qqVO0seeAAOFsQ8mYd/cm60SlRz kf5Yt8lZlFgLuRYq2o2mCuwTWiLqxDrT6Iw6FuQb5gTE5HV41ydw/8AQQJ3enz6VrH wKSYBU26j8HzBvo9TZXilYa+Tp64Tr3jqRQ0m8ah+OPfW5YpBdlPneHVtpyijme6Ca YnvLX3Q8eWXqD7n0pKAJCXqfWAew+rG+tiO/FWV6KkCHYSz42QONSghZu3ebucAz+O aUn82ginSE+L5TgUPR8EpfI54b870Co5WZbaA0G6YY1I7EJmYAK7lwEnnbr12alIUY YRwGqK0PUtRiA== Received: from 65YTFL3.secure.tethers.com (unknown [152.44.190.141]) by mta-14.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 5 Mar 2025 08:11:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2025 08:11:17 -0500 From: Sam Winchenbach To: Jonathan Cameron Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, antoniu.miclaus@analog.com, lars@metafoo.de, Michael.Hennerich@analog.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] iio: filter: admv8818: fix range calculation Message-ID: References: <20250304233411.3fac7c69@jic23-huawei> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250304233411.3fac7c69@jic23-huawei> X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 11:34:11PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 08:17:11 -0500 > Sam Winchenbach wrote: > > > Corrects the upper range of LPF Band 4 from 18.5 GHz to 18.85 GHz per > > the ADMV8818 datasheet > > > Hi Sam, > > Just a trivial process thing. If you are sending updated code > and there isn't an obvious reason why when someone looks at the > old patch set (e.g. no reviews asking for changes etc) please > reply to that. > > At times where reviewers (such as me on this occasion) are running > way behind they might look at wrong version otherwise. > > Jonathan Hi Jonathan, Just to clarify, if I update the patches in, for example v2, then I should reply to the v2 email with the new patch set? That makes sense... it looks like I can use: "--in-reply-to=" with git send-email. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused. Thanks, -Sam