On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 12:54:43PM -0500, Dan Murphy wrote: > Joe > > On 05/02/2016 11:08 AM, Joe Hershberger wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 6:59 AM, Dan Murphy <dmur...@ti.com> wrote: > >> Add the ability to read the phy-handle node of the > >> cpsw slave. Upon reading this handle the phy-id > >> can be stored based on the reg node in the DT. > >> > >> The phy-handle also needs to be stored and passed > >> to the phy to access any phy data that is available. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Dan Murphy <dmur...@ti.com> > >> --- > >> > >> v7 - Fixed checkpatch issues - https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/610946/ > >> Checkpatch LTL issues still remain and resolving will break readability > >> > >> WARNING: line over 80 characters > >> #47: FILE: drivers/net/cpsw.c:1230: > >> WARNING: line over 80 characters > >> #50: FILE: drivers/net/cpsw.c:1233: > > Looks like you dropped most of the Acked-by and Tested-by from the > > last version. Please resend with those included. > > Do we include the Acked-by in the patch?
So, you don't need to resend vX -> v(X+1) if the only change for the whole series is collecting ack/tested/reviewed, patchwork does that for us. If you're making changes to part of a series from vX -> v(X+1) and some areas are unchanged, yes, you should collect the previous acked/reviewed. I think you need to go back and see what ack/tested/reviewed still apply and include those in v8, yes. Thanks! -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot