Hi, On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 09:25:01AM +1100, Chris Lapa wrote: > On 10/1/17 7:58 pm, Pali Rohár wrote: > > On Tuesday 10 January 2017 16:25:29 Chris Lapa wrote: > > > From: Chris Lapa <ch...@lapa.com.au> > > > > > > The BQ275XX definition exists only to satisfy backwards compatibility. > > > > > > tested: yes > > > > Instead "tested: yes" we use: "Tested-by: name <email>" line. > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Lapa <ch...@lapa.com.au> > > > Acked-by: Pali Rohár <pali.ro...@gmail.com> > > > Reviewed-by: Andrew F. Davis <a...@ti.com> > > > > Doh, I went through the log and thought I saw 'tested: yes' being used > previously. Want me to resend?
If a respin is needed, please fix it. Also the patches still use "supplies" instead of "supply" in the patch subject. I would have fixed this while applying, but this (PATCH 1/10) actually looks fishy to me: > - { "bq27500", BQ27500 }, > - { "bq27510", BQ27510 }, > - { "bq27520", BQ27510 }, > + { "bq27500", BQ275XX }, > + { "bq27510", BQ275XX }, > + { "bq27520", BQ275XX }, Previously bq27500 and bq27510/bq27520 had different type ids, while after the patch both use the same. The patch description does not mention why this is ok and it actually looks incorrect. I guess we need to introduce BQ2750X and BQ2751X for backwards compatibility instead? -- Sebastian
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature