Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] iTCO_wdt: Expose watchdog properties using platform data

[Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>]

On Thu, 30 Jul 2015, Matt Fleming wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Jul, at 09:53:47AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Jul 2015, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, 29 Jul, at 04:35:56PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > For my own reference (I assume this will go through the MFD tree):
> > > >   Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
> > > 
> > > Great, thanks Lee!
> > > 
> > > I've no strong opinion on which tree these 3 patches go through but at
> > > the very least patches 1 and 2 need to go through the same tree to avoid
> > > build breakage (since PATCH 1 introduces 'struct itco_wdt_platform_data'
> > > which is used in PATCH 2).
> > > 
> > > For reference, the other patches are here,
> > > 
> > >   https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1438171844-24861-3-git-send-email-matt@codeblueprint.co.uk
> > >   https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1438171844-24861-4-git-send-email-matt@codeblueprint.co.uk
> > 
> > Obviously this makes things more difficult.  Once you have the other
> > Acks you need, I suggest you re-submit the set using --threaded, so we
> > can all see what's going on.
>  
> Umm... I submitted *this* version using --threaded. In fact, that's
> plain to see from the Message-Id format in the links above. It's just
> that I only Cc'd you on the patch that touched the mfd code.

Ah yes, similar result.  Again, unless the set is particularlly large
or touches many subsystems, I tend to Cc all affected Maintainers (if
I'm sending, or like to be Cc'ed if I'm the recipient) on all of the
patches.  Set status is much easier to track that way and issues which
might be relevant to more than one patch in the set can be seen by
all.

> I can resubmit with the Ack/Review tags and copy you on the whole series
> if you'd like.

That would be perfect.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog