Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200727084211.6632-1-lars.povlsen@microchip.com>
 <20200727095009.GK4073@piout.net> <87v9i9fdy7.fsf@soft-dev15.microsemi.net>
In-Reply-To: <87v9i9fdy7.fsf@soft-dev15.microsemi.net>
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date:   Mon, 27 Jul 2020 13:07:14 +0200
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a0CMqqFWM+QXC0wXxrfKBN0U5cyx_naBx+hS3V3SG2KOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/10] Adding support for Microchip Sparx5 SoC
To:     Lars Povlsen <lars.povlsen@microchip.com>
Cc:     Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
        SoC Team <soc@kernel.org>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Steen Hegelund <Steen.Hegelund@microchip.com>,
        Microchip Linux Driver Support <UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
        DTML <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-clk <linux-clk@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 12:30 PM Lars Povlsen
<lars.povlsen@microchip.com> wrote:
> Alexandre Belloni writes:
> > As Arnd stated, he already applied the patches so you have to send an
> > incremental patch to fix the clock driver.
> >
>
> I actually wrote Arnd about this specifically, and he replied that a
> patch against either next or mainline was fine - so that's why I
> refreshed the lot (Including Reviewed-by: headers).

I think I misunderstood your question. To clarify: Alexandre is right,
you should not resend patches that have already been merged but
instead send the incremental patches if you need further changes.

I thought your question was about the case where your patch
series has conflicts against another unrelated set of changes
that may have been merged already.

> But I will send an incremental patch just in case, no problem.

Thanks,

      Arnd