Re: [PATCH 1/2] mfd: da9052: fix broken regulator probe

[Lee Jones]

On Mon, 18 May 2015, Johan Hovold wrote:

> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 10:10:49AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 May 2015, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 08:19:43AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 13 May 2015, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 05:54:19PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, 13 May 2015, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > If you're looking for me to review something you need to send it to me,
> > > > > > > and the chances of me looking at it are very much increased if there's a
> > > > > > > relevant subject line.  I'm CCed (not even on the to list) on endless
> > > > > > > large threads and reposts of patch serieses about MFD drivers most of
> > > > > > > which are of very little relevance to me so they get ignored very
> > > > > > > easily.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Calm down dear, it's only a commercial.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > I wasn't having a pop.  Rather empathising with your situation and
> > > > > > facilitating a resend that you're likely to see.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > I'm sure Johan will do the right thing.
> > > > > 
> > > > > My point is that a simple resend has a reasonable chance of getting
> > > > > dropped on the floor.
> > > > 
> > > > As I say, I'm sure Johan will do what's required for that not to
> > > > happen.
> > > 
> > > Seriously? *Me* do the right thing?
> > 
> > Yes, *you*.  If a patch slips though a Maintainer's net, which does
> > happen every so often [*], I'm sure even you are not infallible to
> > that, a submitter must issue a RESEND (as you have now just done so).
> 
> As you know, five reminders asking for an ack from Mark was sent by the
> two of us combined without even an indication that the messages had been
> noted over a period of almost two months.
> 
> If Mark feels that he is getting spammed with unrelated MFD patches,
> then *you* and Mark need to figure out a way to get a message across
> when there actually is something he needs to look at.
> 
> I don't care if it's with a special [Lee-wants-Marks-ack] subject
> prefix, an irc message on Linaro's channels or a phone call, but it's not
> something that a patch submitter for MFD should need to know about
> (it obviously isn't even documented).
> 
> > > We have a regression in your subsystems (mfd/regulator) with a fix
> > > that's been sitting in both your mailboxes since March 25th.
> > 
> > Fully aware and ready to apply once the correct process has been
> > carried out.  I get shirty when people submit MFD patches without
> > permission, and I refuse to be a hypocrite.
> 
> That's perfectly fine. Your subsystems intersect and you two need to
> figure out how you communicate. That's all.

This issue is out of the ordinary.  Normally Mark is pretty good at
providing me with the Acks I need.  More commonly I have issues such
as the one you are experiencing with non-responsive/inactive
Maintainers.

In future, for yourself and anyone else who is following this thread
for 'fun', if a patch crosses multiple subsystems (which I try to keep
to a minimum) it's probably best to indicate that in the subject line.

mfd: regulator: <blah>

... would definitely get Marks attention.  And yes, I know 'regulator'
is mentioned in the subject line of the particular patch. :)

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org â Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/