From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pl0-f67.google.com ([209.85.160.67]:33089 "EHLO mail-pl0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726123AbeHOX5Y (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Aug 2018 19:57:24 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] iio: chemical: bme680: change MSK->MASK in #defines To: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org Cc: jic23@vger.kernel.org, himanshujha199640@gmail.com References: <20180815203835.21079-1-dpfrey@gmail.com> <20180815203835.21079-5-dpfrey@gmail.com> From: David Frey Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 14:03:31 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180815203835.21079-5-dpfrey@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-iio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org On 8/15/2018 1:38 PM, David Frey wrote: > diff --git a/drivers/iio/chemical/bme680_core.c b/drivers/iio/chemical/bme680_core.c > index 49bb6b84f181..d62cb88af481 100644 > --- a/drivers/iio/chemical/bme680_core.c > +++ b/drivers/iio/chemical/bme680_core.c When splitting the patches apart, I screwed this one up slightly. The patch should also include this hunk: > @@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ static int bme680_read_calib(struct bme680_data *data, > return ret; > } > calib->par_h1 = (tmp_msb << BME680_HUM_REG_SHIFT_VAL) | > - (tmp_lsb & BME680_BIT_H1_DATA_MSK); > + (tmp_lsb & BME680_BIT_H1_DATA_MASK); > > ret = regmap_read(data->regmap, BME680_H2_MSB_REG, &tmp_msb); > if (ret < 0) { What is the correct course of action in the situation? Should I resend just this one patch immediately? Would it get a new version number "[PATCH v3 4/7]"? I think the version number refers to the whole patch series, so it seems wrong to bump the revision of one patch and not transmit the whole series. Thanks, David Frey