Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757253AbaAHRH2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jan 2014 12:07:28 -0500 Received: from mail-pa0-f44.google.com ([209.85.220.44]:48651 "EHLO mail-pa0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755828AbaAHRHZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jan 2014 12:07:25 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1387814889-16670-1-git-send-email-lpapp@kde.org> <20140107090938.GF3182@lee--X1> Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 17:07:24 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: f4WJdlNYHHTAaNOFcT5rbXVpVvQ Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Add GPIO support for the MAX6650/6651 ICs From: Laszlo Papp To: Lee Jones Cc: Guenter Roeck , Linus Walleij , LKML Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In other words, I really do not know what format you prefer for design review. Apparently, not as previously requested, so please tell me what format one _should_ submit design reviews in. I personally still think that submitting "pseudo-code" is a good way of it if it is clearly marked so like in my case, so that it does not mislead anyone that I accidentally submit a clearly broken change for an integration candidate. I hope it is understood that I am asking about design reviews before the lengthy implementation to potentially avoid a lot of additional work on both sides with writing and reviewing an implementation with a "wrong" approach... Cheers ... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/