Re: [PATCH 0/2] mfd: smsc-ece1099: Fine-tuning for smsc_i2c_probe()

[Lee Jones]

On Tue, 12 Jan 2016, SF Markus Elfring wrote:

> > This set is confusing.
> > 
> > Why do you have a cover letter specifying this as a 2 patch set,
> > yet there are 4 patches attached to it?
> 
> I do not see too many messages for this update suggestion.

In my inbox, your set looks like this:

Dec 29 2015 SF Markus Elfring (  0) â>[PATCH] mfd-dm355evm_msp: One function call less in add_child() after error detection
Dec 29 2015 SF Markus Elfring (  0) â>[PATCH 0/2] mfd: smsc-ece1099: Fine-tuning for smsc_i2c_probe()
Dec 29 2015 SF Markus Elfring (  0) ââ>[PATCH 2/2] mfd: smsc-ece1099: Refactoring for smsc_i2c_probe()
Dec 29 2015 SF Markus Elfring (  0) ââ>[PATCH 1/2] mfd: smsc-ece1099: Delete an unnecessary variable initialisation in smsc_i2c_probe()
Dec 29 2015 SF Markus Elfring (  0) â>[PATCH] mfd: twl-core: One function call less in add_numbered_child() after error detection

... which is unconventional and pretty confusing.

> >> From: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 15:10:48 +0100
> > 
> > What format is this?
> 
> Are such specifications needed to preserve the desired authorship information
> during the transfer of commit messages by email?

How did you sent this set?  I fear you are sending these patches
manually, using your mail client.  You should instead be creating
patches with `git format-patch` and sending them using `git
send-email`.  Then the formatting will be correct.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org â Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog