Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-203245-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 22:21:35 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] spi: bitbang: Clean up the driver
Message-ID: <444b20d3-9096-4372-917e-1b997e59cef1@sirena.org.uk>
References: <20240517194104.747328-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <ZmDTgtONF49f8cBr@smile.fi.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Bgpco7hh+3zikyRs"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZmDTgtONF49f8cBr@smile.fi.intel.com>


--Bgpco7hh+3zikyRs
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 12:07:14AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 10:40:19PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > A few cleanups to the driver. No functional change intended.
> >=20
> > Andy Shevchenko (3):
> >   spi: bitbang: Use typedef for txrx_*() callbacks
> >   spi: bitbang: Convert unsigned to unsigned int
> >   spi: bitbang: Replace hard coded number of SPI modes
>=20
> Hmm... It's not the first time I noticed that the series
> (despite even appearing in the CI, but then disappearing)
> left abandoned without clear feedback,

> Should I do something here?

Please don't send content free pings and please allow a reasonable time
for review.  People get busy, go on holiday, attend conferences and so=20
on so unless there is some reason for urgency (like critical bug fixes)
please allow at least a couple of weeks for review.  If there have been
review comments then people may be waiting for those to be addressed.

Sending content free pings adds to the mail volume (if they are seen at
all) which is often the problem and since they can't be reviewed
directly if something has gone wrong you'll have to resend the patches
anyway, so sending again is generally a better approach though there are
some other maintainers who like them - if in doubt look at how patches
for the subsystem are normally handled.

--Bgpco7hh+3zikyRs
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAmZg1t8ACgkQJNaLcl1U
h9DECQf+OJsH0MWYqzm5O2Hn9MDTykYS6fBdEa+ddBkwp3umBF4JiaK4cIFUBQIa
GdFoOub3gdhB7GU0wSaVKzudrBrwblA2ianiCyK/tL+vk9kGs3zj/265JKCW/Dq8
OgczloHMAIcKz846YdUAloaOY0KQwsxLf+b6HUkxeWqXwcaC/gzcdh5mVkc6bxxn
kv3AZpxJzbAHHb/w4Ygf9/BkYxI4mF3QUsY6Qa+grk9HLmg29861hS+Xm6hHjHX1
/zGgT/aqpiphf7WaXyvA9BwsrUVKZtvIXc86JlOj9yKOIPRput1/cMhmYp7qzHxD
fVXiTa5R2zjevt9SZlLRuFsn1mdK2w==
=T2zi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Bgpco7hh+3zikyRs--