Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <Yhofs/PbIOmiyNIH@latitude>
References: <20220205103613.1216218-1-j.neuschaefer@gmx.net> <20220226010033.6C870C340E7@smtp.kernel.org> <Yhofs/PbIOmiyNIH@latitude>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] clk: Declare mux tables as const u32[]
From:   Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Cc:     Jonathan =?utf-8?q?Neusch=C3=A4fer?= <j.neuschaefer@gmx.net>,
        linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
To:     Jonathan =?utf-8?q?Neusch=C3=A4fer?= <j.neuschaefer@gmx.net>
Date:   Fri, 11 Mar 2022 18:33:35 -0800
User-Agent: alot/0.10
Message-Id: <20220312023337.62A25C340E9@smtp.kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk

Quoting Jonathan Neusch=C3=A4fer (2022-02-26 04:40:19)
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 05:00:31PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Jonathan Neusch=C3=A4fer (2022-02-05 02:36:06)
> > > I noticed that the 'table' parameter to clk_register_mux_table is nev=
er
> > > used for modifying the table elements, and so it can be declared cons=
t.
> > >=20
> > > In version 2 I'm addressing two warnings in the clk-lpc18xx-cgu driver
> > > that I previously missed.
> >=20
> > The format of these patches deeply confused my scripts that use git
> > interpret-trailer. I fixed it now, hopefully it keeps working. In the
> > future, please don't add more triple dash '---' sections to the patch.
> > It looks like those extra sections for the changelog messed everything
> > up. Or there's a new bug in interpret-trailers.  Either way,
> > interpret-trailers was adding tags after the entire patch contents
> > because I think it looks for the last triple dash instead of the first
> > triple dash. Not sure why it's done that way. I resorted to
> > reconstructing the patch after splitting it with mailinfo.
>=20
> Hmm, sorry about that.
>=20
> I've used this format for a while, because it conveniently lets me
> keep my remarks in a git commit (rather than a patch file), until I use
> git format-patch to generate the final patch file.
>=20
> I'm not very familiar with git interpret-trailers, but git 2.34.1
> doesn't seem to get confused on my patches (or I didn't pass the right
> options to cause it to happen).
>=20

It's possible it's a git bug. No worries!