| Message ID | 20181130064709.6998-1-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | spi: imx: Fix polarity switching for mx51-ecspi | expand |
Hello Mark, On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 07:47:04AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > compared to v2 sent with Message-Id: > 20181123085158.24753-1-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de I squashed in the > change suggested by Robin (with s/filed/field/). Thanks for testing and > feedback. In my eyes this series is ready to go in. The feedback I got so far was only that there could be done still more. And given that patch 2 is a fix I'd like to see this in 4.21. Best regards Uwe
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 10:52:41PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > In my eyes this series is ready to go in. The feedback I got so far was > only that there could be done still more. And given that patch 2 is a > fix I'd like to see this in 4.21. It looked like there was an unanswered question about if patch 2 was needed or not? Marek?
Hello Mark, On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 01:14:28AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 10:52:41PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > In my eyes this series is ready to go in. The feedback I got so far was > > only that there could be done still more. And given that patch 2 is a > > fix I'd like to see this in 4.21. > > It looked like there was an unanswered question about if patch 2 was > needed or not? Marek? I cannot find an unanswered question. There is a workaround that Marek introduced in 6fd8b8503a0dcf66510314dc054745087ae89f94 that might not be needed any more with my patch 2. So it's the other way round: If Marek's problem is fixed by patch 2, my patch is the better one. I have problems with SCK changing polarity when CS is already asserted in the presence of Marek's change. After my change they are gone. Even if this workaround is superflous now, it doesn't hurt and IMHO the question if it is needed or not should not delay my fix. If I miss something, can you please point out the message-id? Best regards Uwe
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 08:13:00AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 01:14:28AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > It looked like there was an unanswered question about if patch 2 was > > needed or not? Marek? > I cannot find an unanswered question. There is a workaround that Marek > introduced in 6fd8b8503a0dcf66510314dc054745087ae89f94 that might not be > needed any more with my patch 2. So it's the other way round: If Marek's > problem is fixed by patch 2, my patch is the better one. I have problems > with SCK changing polarity when CS is already asserted in the presence > of Marek's change. After my change they are gone. Even if this > workaround is superflous now, it doesn't hurt and IMHO the question if > it is needed or not should not delay my fix. That was the unanswered question. Please include human readable descriptions of things like commits and issues being discussed in e-mail in your mails, this makes them much easier for humans to read especially when they have no internet access. I do frequently catch up on my mail on flights or while otherwise travelling so this is even more pressing for me than just being about making things a bit easier to read.
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 11:56:01AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 08:13:00AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 01:14:28AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > It looked like there was an unanswered question about if patch 2 was > > > needed or not? Marek? > > > I cannot find an unanswered question. There is a workaround that Marek > > introduced in 6fd8b8503a0dcf66510314dc054745087ae89f94 that might not be > > needed any more with my patch 2. So it's the other way round: If Marek's > > problem is fixed by patch 2, my patch is the better one. I have problems > > with SCK changing polarity when CS is already asserted in the presence > > of Marek's change. After my change they are gone. Even if this > > workaround is superflous now, it doesn't hurt and IMHO the question if > > it is needed or not should not delay my fix. > > That was the unanswered question. FTR: your reference to an "unanswered question" wasn't optimal either. I had to search my inbox for a while to determine what you could have meant :-) > Please include human readable descriptions of things like commits and > issues being discussed in e-mail in your mails, this makes them much > easier for humans to read especially when they have no internet access. I'm always willing to learn how to make my mails more cooperative. I'd hope that even when offline you have a linux.git at hand to resolve what I meant with "6fd8b8503a0dcf66510314dc054745087ae89f94". Apart from this unannotated commit hash it's not clear to me what else could have been improved here. Best regards Uwe
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 09:11:26PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 11:56:01AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > That was the unanswered question. > FTR: your reference to an "unanswered question" wasn't optimal either. I > had to search my inbox for a while to determine what you could have > meant :-) At the time I wrote that I didn't actually know, I just knew that I'd remembered the subthread ended with a question to Marek about if this was needed. > > Please include human readable descriptions of things like commits and > > issues being discussed in e-mail in your mails, this makes them much > > easier for humans to read especially when they have no internet access. > I'm always willing to learn how to make my mails more cooperative. > I'd hope that even when offline you have a linux.git at hand to resolve > what I meant with "6fd8b8503a0dcf66510314dc054745087ae89f94". Apart from > this unannotated commit hash it's not clear to me what else could have > been improved here. Including the title of the commit. It's not just about offline usage, it's also about making the mail easier to read - having to stop and use another tool to understand what's being talked about is a blocker to the flow of reading the message.
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 08:40:47PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 09:11:26PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > FTR: your reference to an "unanswered question" wasn't optimal either. I > > had to search my inbox for a while to determine what you could have > > meant :-) > At the time I wrote that I didn't actually know, I just knew that I'd > remembered the subthread ended with a question to Marek about if this > was needed. Just to expand on this a bit: the way I'm working here is that I'm remembering if there's some reason I'm expecting some additional replies, either because there's someone likely to do review on the relevant code, there was some specific question I remember or because there was a discussion that seemed to peter out without conclusion between people who are likely to respond. If something like that is happening I'll leave a bit longer for replies than I might otherwise (conversely if it's something where it's very unlikely that there will be any comment I'll tend to leave less time).