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: <20210413025948.901867-1-kubernat@cesnet.cz> <250c1c16-541a-984f-c720-1a8b6176e97e@roeck-us.net>
 <CABKa3npjrpq5Aw_Xqy3mFZtUHZcfB0YENxEDgo_MCwPUKqA4ww@mail.gmail.com> <20210426141745.GA257701@roeck-us.net>
In-Reply-To: <20210426141745.GA257701@roeck-us.net>
From:   =?UTF-8?B?VsOhY2xhdiBLdWJlcm7DoXQ=?= <kubernat@cesnet.cz>
Date:   Mon, 26 Apr 2021 16:29:55 +0200
Message-ID: <CABKa3np=osah3zcNmwohL0h8sVOHYcGW6rNYhM=1OzrOiLo50A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] hwmon: (max31790) Rework to use regmap
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Cc:     Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

po 26. 4. 2021 v 16:18 odes=C3=ADlatel Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> n=
apsal:
>
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 02:46:27PM +0200, V=C3=A1clav Kubern=C3=A1t wrote=
:
> > Hello.
> >
> > I'm sending a new version of my patch on max31790. This new version
> > fixes the cache issue and actually makes it work by setting
> > .cache_type. You were right about the "yes/no" ranges, so I flipped
> > those.
> >
> > By the way, it seems that the reason your reply got lost is because of
> > weird addresses in the "Cc:" email field, they end with "cesnet.cz",
> > so it could be that I'm sending email incorrectly. Let me know if I'm
> > doing something wrong.
> >
>
> Yes, the To: field of your series is either empty (for the first patch
> of the series), or it is something like:
>         To: unlisted-recipients: no To-header on input <;
>
> Also, you send your follow-up series as response of the previous series
> which doesn't follow the guidance for submitting patches and may result
> in the entire series getting lost.
>

Sorry, I will fix my email-sending procedure. Should I resend the
patch series without the In-Reply-To field?

V=C3=A1clav

> Guenter