From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 6/6] mmc: dw_mmc: Add support DW SD/MMC driver on SOCFPGA Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 19:12:53 +0200 Message-ID: <201305241912.53751.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1369410080-436-1-git-send-email-dinguyen@altera.com> <1369410080-436-6-git-send-email-dinguyen@altera.com> <201305241910.37975.arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.8]:56104 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755337Ab3EXRNe (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 May 2013 13:13:34 -0400 In-Reply-To: <201305241910.37975.arnd@arndb.de> Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org To: dinguyen@altera.com Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, dinh.linux@gmail.com, Seungwon Jeon , Jaehoon Chung , Olof Johansson , Pavel Machek , linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org On Friday 24 May 2013, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > It also seems odd to have this in the series for the ethernet driver. After I sent it I realized that your patches are actually for different parts of the system, they were just all replies to the same first patch. It's usually helpful to add a [PATCH 0/6] message that explains the overall intention and who you expect to pick up the patches, to avoid the confusion I had. Arnd