Re: [PATCH v2] HID: sony: add support for more instruments

[Rosalie <rosalie@mailbox.org>]

Hello,

Yes I do apologize, and I'll be mindful of either doing a series, mark 
dependencies clearly or do a pull request.

I didn't expect to be sending this many patches at all in the first 
place, but one minor annoyance of the code bothers me one day and then 
another day someone else mentions that e.g a device name is incorrect, 
so that kinda led to this chaos.

Apologies and I'll try preventing it in the future, and thanks for the 
advice,
Rosalie

On 4/9/26 00:08, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Apr 2026, Rosalie wrote:
> 
>> Hello,
>>
>> I've sent 'HID: sony: fix incorrect Squier name and remove non-existent
>> device', though I will mention you didn't apply 'HID: quirks: update hid-sony
>> supported devices' cleanly because it duplicated the vendor and device ID
>> defines in hid-ids.h for the Wii instruments so it will not compile, I'd
>> advise you apply the patches in the following order to prevent issues:
>>
>> 1) v1 of 'HID: sony: add support for more instruments'
>> 2) 'HID: sony: fix incorrect Squier name and remove non-existent device'
>> 3) v2 of 'HID: quirks: update hid-sony supported devices' but without changing
>> hid-ids.h
>> 4) v2 of 'HID: sony: fix style issues' (if you want this patch to be included
>> that is)
>>
>> alternatively you could also do:
>>
>> 1) v2 of 'HID: sony: add support for more instruments'
>> 2) v2 of 'HID: quirks: update hid-sony supported devices'
>> 3) v2 of 'HID: sony: fix style issues'
>>
>> I hope this doesn't cause too much hassle,
> 
> Thanks, I will look into it. But going forward, you really should either
> send this as series, or clearly mark the dependencies. Sending it as a
> followup fix in the same thread also works.
> 
> Or, even better, send a pull request against a git branch if the
> interdependencies are tricky.
> 
> Imagine you're getting higher tens of patches a day (including e.g. quite
> often v1->v5 within a timeframe of a few hours), and you are somehow
> magically expected to untangle all this.
> 
> Thanks,
>