Re: [PATCH 1/2] mfd: da9052: fix broken regulator probe

[Mark Brown]

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 01:01:19PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:

> My reminders sent directly to you explicitly mentioned it being a
> regression every time. That should trigger a maintainer's interest
> enough to look at the quoted context or ask for a resend.

Sadly what I actually ended up reading was Lee's reply not one of your
mails.

> How should a patch submitter know that you simply drop mails with an mfd
> prefix even if it's directed to you? Unless documented somewhere, that's
> were Lee can help through being familiar with the quirks of your work flow.

I don't drop *all* such mails, this isn't a rules based thing but rather
something that depends on a bunch of factors including how busy I am at
that particular moment.  MFD discussions (even more so than patches) are
certainly a bit of a warning sign here but that's not the only factor
and there are positives as well as negatives.  For example very broad CC
lists on driver specific patches usually indicate that someone just sent
the mail to everyone that get_maintainers --git pulled out (which tends
to generate a lot of false positives), but on the other hand something
like syscon (which is broadly used) or DT bindings (which often affect
subfunctions too) is more likely to be relevant.

About the only hard and fast rule for this sort of thing is that if
someone wants specific people to look at a patch it's usually a good
idea to send the actual patch directly to them with a relevant subject
line.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature