On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Dan Murphy <dmur...@ti.com> wrote: > Tom > > On 05/02/2016 12:58 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >> 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! >> > Do I have to up rev the series if I am just adding in acked/reviewed > information?
No, you can simply reply to each patch with the info from the last version of that patch. -Joe _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot