From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-iw0-f188.google.com (mail-iw0-f188.google.com [209.85.223.188]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48402B7E36 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 2010 08:22:58 +1100 (EST) Received: by iwn26 with SMTP id 26so530299iwn.9 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:22:57 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: glikely@secretlab.ca In-Reply-To: <20100311193458.GA13289@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <20100311174830.4824.19820.stgit@angua> <20100311180649.4824.10368.stgit@angua> <20100311193458.GA13289@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> From: Grant Likely Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:22:37 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 33/37] sound/soc: use .dev.of_node instead of .node in struct of_device To: Mark Brown Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, 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, 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. Thanks for the review. g.