quoted

quoted

The tnetv107x platform is getting removed, so this driver
is not needed any more.

Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Samuel Ortiz <redacted>
Cc: Lee Jones <redacted>
---
 drivers/mfd/Kconfig  |  11 --
 drivers/mfd/Makefile |   1 -
 drivers/mfd/ti-ssp.c | 465 ---------------------------------------------------
 3 files changed, 477 deletions(-)
 delete mode 100644 drivers/mfd/ti-ssp.c

Applied, thanks.

This makes me wonder whether you apply any patch you receive via email,
or whether you read the covering email first.

I did (miss-)read the cover letter first.

Arnd's 0/5 email said:

	However, I'm looking for an Ack from
	Cyril Chemparathy and Sekhar Nori first, to be sure we
	won't need this code in the future.

I read this to mean "looking for an Ack from Cyril and Sekhar for
patches which are due to go in via a different tree (ARM-SoC?)".

My apologies for misreading. Patch removed from MFD -next until I get
a further nod.

This is exactly the reason why I'd now recommend that if people want to
send out patches which they don't intend maintainers to take, that they
use "[PATCH RFC" in the subject _and_ they make sure that the patch can't
be trivially applied.  That means maintainers have to (a) not notice the
RFC in the subject, and _then_ they have to intentionally fix the patch
before applying.  Both taken together will be sufficient deterrent for
this kind of mistake happening.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog