Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] regulator: dt-bindings: qcom,usb-vbus-regulator: change node name

From: Luca Weiss <luca@z3ntu.xyz>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
	~postmarketos/upstreaming@lists.sr.ht,
	phone-devel@vger.kernel.org, afd@ti.com,
	Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
	Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
	Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@somainline.org>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
	Wesley Cheng <quic_wcheng@quicinc.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] regulator: dt-bindings: qcom,usb-vbus-regulator: change node name
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2022 19:11:10 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <12119923.O9o76ZdvQC@g550jk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y63U+7LnWhixrW6g@sirena.org.uk>

On Donnerstag, 29. Dezember 2022 18:57:15 CET Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 10:30:47PM +0100, Luca Weiss wrote:
> > On Montag, 31. Oktober 2022 18:39:32 CET Luca Weiss wrote:
> > > usb-vbus-regulator is a better generic node name than dcdc to change the
> > > example to match.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Luca Weiss <luca@z3ntu.xyz>
> > 
> > Bump? Can this patch be picked up please?
> 
> 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
> 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.

The patch was sent end of October, that is two months ago. I don't think two 
months of waiting is an unreasonable amount of time and is also more than "a 
couple of weeks"...

And as far as I am aware there's no open review comments, which is why I did 
send the email to ask what the status is so that it can go into 6.3 and I can 
remove it from my inbox.

Regards
Luca

> 
> 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.