[PATCH v2 1/7] pinctrl: UniPhier: add UniPhier pinctrl core support

[Masahiro Yamada]

Hi Linus,



2015-07-16 16:20 GMT+09:00 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij at linaro.org>:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 4:40 AM, Masahiro Yamada
> <yamada.masahiro at socionext.com> wrote:
>
>> The core support for the pinctrl drivers for all the UniPhier SoCs.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro at socionext.com>
>> ---
>>
>> Changes in v2:
>>   - drop vogus THIS_MODULE because this file is always built-in
>>   - drop vogus "include <linux/module.h> because this file is
>>     always built-in
>
> This looks nice and uses all generic facilities we have.
>
> Patch applied.
>
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij
>



I saw the applied patch and noticed "Changes in v2"
was moved to git-description.


commit 6e908892025885b07e804dc6c05aab6ce1e06832
Author: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro at socionext.com>
Date:   Tue Jul 14 11:40:01 2015 +0900

    pinctrl: UniPhier: add UniPhier pinctrl core support

    The core support for the pinctrl drivers for all the UniPhier SoCs.

    Changes in v2:
      - drop vogus THIS_MODULE because this file is always built-in
      - drop vogus "include <linux/module.h> because this file is
        always built-in

    Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro at socionext.com>
    Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij at linaro.org>




Do we need to record such stuff in the git history?

In my opinion, the difference between patch versions
should be mentioned to help reviewers, but not included in the git repository.

Early versions are often so immature that they must be improved
in the review process.
No point to record what was updated from those versions, I think.

This is why I put "changed in v2" below the "---".



-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada