Thread (14 messages) 14 messages, 4 authors, 2017-01-26

Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] pinctrl / gpio: Introduce .set_config() callback for GPIO chips

From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
Date: 2017-01-25 10:09:57
Also in: lkml

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 04:22:20PM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 02:45:04PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
quoted
Good, that's the one I knew about. But I also got another conflict
against pinctrl when applying on top of f9dd6f6cc63c ("Add linux-next
specific files for 20170123"):

Applying: pinctrl / gpio: Introduce .set_config() callback for GPIO chips
error: patch failed: drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-amd.c:756
error: drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-amd.c: patch does not apply
error: patch failed: drivers/staging/greybus/gpio.c:474
error: drivers/staging/greybus/gpio.c: patch does not apply
Patch failed at 0001 pinctrl / gpio: Introduce .set_config() callback for GPIO chips
I tried today's linux-next 766074e7818 ("Add linux-next specific files
for 20170124") but only saw that GPIO conflict.

In any case I'm going to rebase my series on top of linux-gpio.git/devel
and submit it as v3.
That said, it seems this v2 series applies cleanly to
linux-gpio.git/devel. There will be trivial conflict with the staging
tree because of 7f2e9de736e7 ("staging: greybus: fix checkpatch unsigned
warnings") but that's it.

LinusW, can you take the series as is or should I rebase it on top of
something else?

Thanks and sorry about the mess.
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help