From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from poutre.nerim.net (poutre.nerim.net [62.4.16.124]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16294B7D4B for ; Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:40:45 +1100 (EST) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 09:26:19 +0100 From: Jean Delvare To: Grant Likely Subject: Re: [PATCH 33/37] sound/soc: use .dev.of_node instead of .node in struct of_device Message-ID: <20100312092619.6a6f5e20@hyperion.delvare> In-Reply-To: References: <20100311174830.4824.19820.stgit@angua> <20100311180649.4824.10368.stgit@angua> <20100311193458.GA13289@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, Mark Brown , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, James.Bottomley@suse.de, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, jeremy.kerr@canonical.com, sfr@canb.auug.org.au, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, jgarzik@pobox.com, microblaze-uclinux@itee.uq.edu.au, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, ben-linux@fluff.org, timur@freescale.com, lrg@slimlogic.co.uk, monstr@monstr.eu, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, dwmw2@infradead.org, davem@davemloft.net List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:22:37 -0700, Grant Likely wrote: > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Mark Brown > wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:06:50AM -0700, Grant Likely wrote: > >> .node is being removed > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Grant Likely > > > > Acked-by: Mark Brown > > > > but please ensure that Liam and especially Timur also check this (both > > CCed). > > > > For enormous patch serieses like this it's really nice if you can ensure > > that each person is only CCed on the patches that they need to review. > > Much less stuff in the inbox. > > Yeah, sorry about that (and to everyone receiving this thread, I'm > really sorry. I won't do it again). I've already been yelled at for > that. What happened is that on a previous series I was yelled at for > not sending all patches to everyone (so that the patches could be > reviewed in context). So, naturally, I made sure to include everyone > on the whole series this time.... doh. > > Next time I post I'll constrain it to small chunks. A good compromise IMHO is to send only the pieces they really have to see and ack to each person, and provide a pointer to somewhere the full series can be seen and downloaded for the interested. -- Jean Delvare