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 <[email protected]> > > > > > > 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 <[email protected]> > > > Acked-by: Pali Rohár <[email protected]> > > > Reviewed-by: Andrew F. Davis <[email protected]> > > > > 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
