From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Chris Brandt Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 0/3] serial: sh-sci: Add support for RZ/A2 Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2018 15:55:14 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20180725143850.32985-1-chris.brandt@renesas.com> <20180728145515.GB19385@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20180728145515.GB19385@kroah.com> Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg KH , Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , Geert Uytterhoeven , "open list:SERIAL DRIVERS" , "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS , Linux-Renesas" , Simon Horman List-ID: On Saturday, July 28, 2018 1, Greg KH wrote: > > > In your opinion, which one would be better (revert or rebase)? > > > > [looking at the incremental differences] > > > > I think the easiest for Greg is to rebase, and send 3 patches: >=20 > Greg does not rebase his public trees. Nor should anyone else :) >=20 > I can revert patches if you want me to, just let me know what ones. Or > send incremental patches on top of my tree please. But no reverts are > going to be happening. Yesterday I sent a new patch series that will apply on top of the=20 current tty-next and basically reverts what I did and replaces it with a=20 new version that incorporates Geert's suggestions. So no reverts are needed. I assume now I'm just waiting to see if Geert has any feedback on the=20 new series. Chris From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relmlor4.renesas.com ([210.160.252.174]:7154 "EHLO relmlie3.idc.renesas.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729158AbeG1RW0 (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Jul 2018 13:22:26 -0400 From: Chris Brandt To: Greg KH , Geert Uytterhoeven CC: Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , Geert Uytterhoeven , "open list:SERIAL DRIVERS" , "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" , Linux-Renesas , Simon Horman Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 0/3] serial: sh-sci: Add support for RZ/A2 Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2018 15:55:14 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20180725143850.32985-1-chris.brandt@renesas.com> <20180728145515.GB19385@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20180728145515.GB19385@kroah.com> Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-renesas-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Saturday, July 28, 2018 1, Greg KH wrote: > > > In your opinion, which one would be better (revert or rebase)? > > > > [looking at the incremental differences] > > > > I think the easiest for Greg is to rebase, and send 3 patches: >=20 > Greg does not rebase his public trees. Nor should anyone else :) >=20 > I can revert patches if you want me to, just let me know what ones. Or > send incremental patches on top of my tree please. But no reverts are > going to be happening. Yesterday I sent a new patch series that will apply on top of the=20 current tty-next and basically reverts what I did and replaces it with a=20 new version that incorporates Geert's suggestions. So no reverts are needed. I assume now I'm just waiting to see if Geert has any feedback on the=20 new series. Chris