Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] regulator: tps65090: Make FETs more reliable by adding retries
From: Doug Anderson
Date: Wed Apr 16 2014 - 17:35:00 EST
Mark,
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 11:25:24AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> An issue was discovered with tps65090 where sometimes the FETs
>> wouldn't actually turn on when requested (they would report
>> overcurrent). The most problematic FET was the one used for the LCD
>
> Please don't send new patches as replies in the middle of threads, it
> makes it confusing trying to work out which versions of things should be
> applied.
I'm a little confused about what I did wrong. Can you give more details?
* V1 had 3 patches plus a cover letter.
* I was asked to split two patches, so V2 has 5 patches plus a cover letter.
* My v2 series was all "in reply to" the v1 cover letter, which I
thought was best practice.
* All of my v2 patches were marked with v2 and included changes
between v1 and v2.
* Everyone was CCed on the cover letter. Only appropriate people were
CCed on the individual patches (as per get_maintainer, automated by
patman).
* All patches were resent at v2.
If I had to answer your question, I'd say that you should now
completely ignore v1 and look at v2.
-Doug
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/