Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] iio: chemical: bme680: change MSK->MASK in #defines

Himanshu Jha
2018-08-16T09:13:45Z

On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 02:03:31PM -0700, David Frey wrote:
> On 8/15/2018 1:38 PM, David Frey wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > 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.

The rule is send the whole series again with the changelog mentioned
below the '---' and in your case mentioning
"no changes in this patch" in the changelog for all other patches in
series would be nice.

Another issue which I see is that you would need to rebase on top of my
patch that I sent a while ago because otherwise the patch won't apply
cleanly to the iio tree.

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180811102636.6171-1-himanshujha199640@gmail.com/t/#u

As soon as you would next version, I would get it tested.

Thanks
--
Himanshu Jha
Undergraduate Student
Department of Electronics & Communication
Guru Tegh Bahadur Institute of Technology