On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 10:47:20AM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 07:05:16PM +0200, Marcos Del Sol Vives wrote: > > El 21/08/2025 a las 12:18, Marcos Del Sol Vives escribió: > > > +#include <linux/types.h> > > > +#include <linux/errno.h> > > > +#include <linux/module.h> > > > +#include <linux/ioport.h> > > > +#include <linux/spinlock.h> > > > +#include <linux/gpio/driver.h> > > > +#include <linux/gpio/regmap.h> > > > +#include <linux/regmap.h> > > > +#include <linux/ioport.h> > > > +#include <linux/types.h> > > > +#include <linux/platform_device.h> > > > > I realized now that, despite checking over and over the patches before > > sending to the mailing list, I forgot to clean up leftover includes from > > previous versions of the driver. > > > > I am fairly new to this procedure of merging patches. Should I later, after > > a send a sensible amount of time has passed to let everyone voice their > > opinion, send a new v4 version of the patch to fix these (and also clarify > > the commit message on the regmap-gpio, as requested in another email), > > or if accepted would maybe the person merging it sort this out? > > I'm not the person to merge this, but my advice is to wait a few days > and post a v4 that cleans up the includes and updates the commit > messages. It makes the process cleaner if the patch you post is the > same as the one that gets merged. Sorry for the noise, should have read farther through my email :)