From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753466AbbFDOVY (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Jun 2015 10:21:24 -0400 Received: from opensource.wolfsonmicro.com ([80.75.67.52]:53261 "EHLO opensource.wolfsonmicro.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753223AbbFDOVV (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Jun 2015 10:21:21 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 15:21:19 +0100 From: Nariman Poushin To: Mark Brown Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, patches@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] regmap: Add reg_sequence for use with multi_reg_write / register_patch Message-ID: <20150604142118.GA12548@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <20150601092012.GA31354@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20150602181512.GC14071@sirena.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150602181512.GC14071@sirena.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 07:15:13PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 10:20:12AM +0100, Nariman Poushin wrote: > > > it be accepted), should I: > > - Squash all the updates in to this patch (I suppose the benefit > > there is that we don't break the kernel build from one patch > > to the other) > > You need to squash the changes in since they break bisection if handled > separately. It would be better to do this by having a separate patch to > add the newly named structure rather than adding the new functionality > at the same time. That makes the patch more mechanical and easier to > review. Ok, I have a patch set ready (as you described) but I am having some problem deciding on the correct distribution, the squashed patch that touches a whole bunch of subsystems ends up with a monstrous get_maintainer.pl output, so even going through and checking MAINTAINERS I have ended up with a large list (26 individuals and lists). Is this ok? I am not sure if it is going to get bounced by mail servers as spam or whether it's bad etiquette to do this, but as you say we don't want to break the bisection. Thanks Nariman