From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754171AbbL3Bsz (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Dec 2015 20:48:55 -0500 Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:33417 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753903AbbL3Bsw convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Dec 2015 20:48:52 -0500 Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 20:48:47 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <20151229.204847.578920480799799256.davem@davemloft.net> To: heiko@sntech.de Cc: zhengxing@rock-chips.com, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, keescook@google.com, leozwang@google.comi, linux@arm.linux.org.uk, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, paul.gortmaker@windriver.com, galak@codeaurora.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk, pawel.moll@arm.com, geert@linux-m68k.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v1 0/4] Add support emac for the RK3036 SoC platform From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <3925713.yDzK1dvrIv@diego> References: <1451287341-16453-1-git-send-email-zhengxing@rock-chips.com> <20151229.155314.1522114236952280828.davem@davemloft.net> <3925713.yDzK1dvrIv@diego> X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.12 (shards.monkeyblade.net [149.20.54.216]); Tue, 29 Dec 2015 17:48:52 -0800 (PST) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Heiko Stübner Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 23:27:55 +0100 > Hi Dave, > > Am Dienstag, 29. Dezember 2015, 15:53:14 schrieb David Miller: >> You have to submit this series properly, the same problem happend twice >> now. >> >> When you submit a series you should: >> >> 1) Make it clear which tree you expect these changes to be applied >> to. Here it is completely ambiguous, do you want it to go into >> my networking tree or some other subsystem tree? >> >> 2) You MUST keep all parties informed about all patches for a series >> like this. That means you cannot drop netdev from patch #4 as >> you did both times. Doing this aggravates the situation for >> #1 even more, because if a patch is not CC:'d to netdev it does >> not enter patchwork. And if it doesn't go into patchwork, I'm >> not looking at it. > > I guess that is some unfortunate result of git send-email combined with > get_maintainer.pl . In general I also prefer to see the whole series, but have > gotten such partial series from other maintainers as well in the past, so it > seems to be depending on preferences somewhat. > > For the series at hand, the 4th patch is the devicetree addition, which the > expected way is me picking it up, after you are comfortable with the code- > related changes. Why would it not be appropriate for a DT file change to go into my tree if it corresponds to functionality created by the rest of the patches in the series? It looks better to put it all together as a unit, via one series, with a merge commit containing your "[PATCH 0/N]" description in the commit message.