Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751470AbdH1Q4J (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Aug 2017 12:56:09 -0400 Received: from mail-oi0-f43.google.com ([209.85.218.43]:34388 "EHLO mail-oi0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751207AbdH1Q4I (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Aug 2017 12:56:08 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADKCNb65szk6x1oFpGUlOf7g/NCAvlvapc1npwPG/ja1iQ9fLrQtDGJTdCEgLKRNmGLgWbjvcQwgHHe3x8srXvK//fg= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <16cc9d9c-b11f-ecab-857e-854c47e266ad@roeck-us.net> References: <20170827052324.11854-1-Badhri@google.com> <20170827180136.GA30883@kroah.com> <16cc9d9c-b11f-ecab-857e-854c47e266ad@roeck-us.net> From: Badhri Jagan Sridharan Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 09:55:26 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] staging: usb: typec: tcpm set port type callback To: Guenter Roeck Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, LKML Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2041 Lines: 51 On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On 08/27/2017 11:01 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> >> On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 10:23:24PM -0700, Badhri Jagan Sridharan wrote: >>> >>> The port type callback call enquires the tcpc_dev if >>> the requested port type is supported. If supported, then >>> performs a tcpm reset if required after setting the tcpm >>> internal port_type variable. >>> >>> Check against the tcpm port_type instead of checking >>> against caps.type as port_type reflects the current >>> configuration. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Badhri Jagan Sridharan >>> Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck >>> --- >>> drivers/staging/typec/tcpm.c | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- >>> 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) >> >> >> This series is really messed up. I see patches out of 6 and out of 11, >> and none of it "threaded" so I don't know what is what to apply :( >> >> Please resend the whole series, correctly, with Guenter's reviewed-by, >> so I know what to apply and in what order. >> > > Agreed, I got confused a bit as well. I think Badhri resent patches 1..6 > as part of the 1..11 series and marked those as v2, but he did not mark > patches 7..11 as v2. > > Badhri, please mark all patches as v3 and indicate the reason in the > changelog (the reason being to add my Reviewed-by: tag and to fix patch > sequence/version numbers). In general, if you add a patch to a series, > please mark the entire series with the same version and provide a changelog > entry indicating that the patch was added in this version. Apologies for sending a confusing patch stack. I wasnt aware of the procedure to add new patches to an already sent patchlist. Thanks for advising on this. Resending the patch series with Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck , will change the version number to v3 and the sequence number as well. Now that I am aware of this, will follow this in the future as well. > > > Thanks, > Guenter