Re: [PATCH V2 4/4] ACPI,PCI,IRQ: correct operator precedence

From: Rafael J. Wysocki
Date: Wed Jun 29 2016 - 17:40:55 EST


On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 11:19 PM, Sinan Kaya <okaya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 6/29/2016 5:14 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Sinan Kaya <okaya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 6/29/2016 9:16 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Well, this is a rather obvious one, so I'm wondering why it is the
>>>> last one in the series?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The first three are more relevant to each other. It makes easy to
>>> correlate the changes.
>>
>> But this one doesn't seem to depend on them and it could be applied
>> without them, right?
>>
>
> Sure. It has no dependency.

OK

I've queued up this one.

Thanks,
Rafael