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;
Message-ID: <046a29a5191c53813ce9477000b07c21ca5699fc.camel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] iio: pressure: bmp280: simplify driver
 initialization logic
From:   Angel Iglesias <ang.iglesiasg@gmail.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>,
        Paul Cercueil <paul@crapouillou.net>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Mon, 11 Jul 2022 14:45:06 +0200
In-Reply-To: <YssdPch7dVmRWDbB@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <20220710091708.15967-1-ang.iglesiasg@gmail.com>
         <YssdPch7dVmRWDbB@smile.fi.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.42.4 (3.42.4-2.module_f35+14217+587aad52) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On dom, 2022-07-10 at 21:41 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> It seems you somehow managed to send patches separately from email
> perspective.
> Make sure you pass parameter --thread to `git format-patch`, so it will create
> a proper chain of emails.

How should I proceed to fix this issue? Should I wait for more feedback and send
a new revision of the patches, now as a proper mail chain? Or should I resend
current patchset as a chain? I don't want to spam the mailing list more due to
my inexperience contributing.

> On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 11:17:06AM +0200, Angel Iglesias wrote:
> > Simplified common initialization logic of different sensor types
> > unifying calibration and initial configuration recovery.
> > 
> > Default config param values of each sensor type are stored inside
> > chip_info structure and used to initialize sensor data struct instance.
> > 
> > The auxiliar functions for read each sensor type calibration are converted
> > to a callback available on the chip_info struct.
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Angel Iglesias <ang.iglesiasg@gmail.com>
> > Suggested-by: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
> 
> Usually this kind of tag goes before your SoB, because it's chronologically
> correct.
> 
Ok, makes sense.

Thank you for your time and help,

Best regards,
Angel