[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <74CDBE0F657A3D45AFBB94109FB122FF1790EC8791@HQMAIL01.nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:01:17 -0800
From: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
CC: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...escale.com>,
Thomas Abraham <thomas.abraham@...aro.org>,
Dong Aisheng <dong.aisheng@...aro.org>,
Rajendra Nayak <rajendra.nayak@...aro.org>,
Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...vell.com>,
Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
"linux-serial@...r.kernel.org" <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] serial/sirf: fixup for changes to pin control
Linus Walleij wrote at Thursday, February 16, 2012 11:44 AM:
> We changed the signature of the pin multiplexing functions to
> handle any pin business, so fix up the Sirf driver to call this
> new interface and rename some variables to make the semantics
> understandable.
>
> Cc: linux-serial@...r.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Looks good to me for now.
I'll have to do another similar change when I implement the pinctrl_get
API changes we discussed at Linaro Connect (I should start implementing
that today), but I guess that's no big deal.
Should this patch be put into the pinctrl tree since that's where the
API changed, perhaps even squashed into the original commit to avoid
git bisect breakage, unless your branch needs to be stable? Otherwise,
this change will conflict with my future similar change if pulled for
the same kernel version.
--
nvpublic
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists