linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC/RFT 1/2] regulator: Fix da9052 ldo regulator names

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAF+7xWnNjJbdG2G8RBG_n5KdzCLXNe0RpJ2F99gFoP+R+AMYDA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 15 Mar 2012 07:42:53 +0800
From:	Axel Lin <axel.lin@...il.com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Dajun Chen <dchen@...semi.com>,
	Ashish Jangam <ashish.jangam@...tcummins.com>,
	"Ying-Chun Liu (PaulLiu)" <paul.liu@...aro.org>,
	Liam Girdwood <lrg@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC/RFT 1/2] regulator: Fix da9052 ldo regulator names

2012/3/14 Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 07:42:50AM +0800, Axel Lin wrote:
>> The regulator name for LDOs are LDO4 ... LDO13 in current implementation.
>> The correct regulator name for LDOs should be LDO1 ... LDO10.
>
> Can you please rebase this against -next?  I was going to apply but some
> of your other fixes end up conflicting with this and the second change.

hi Mark,

These two patches can be cleanly apply to -next branch.

I found the root of the conflict is because below commits are NOT in
your topic/drivers branch.
( they are in for-next branch ).
commit 4adf9beda5 regulator: Fix mask parameter in da9052_reg_update calls
commit 7b95765 regulator: Set n_voltages for da9052 regulators
commit 93651218 regulator: da9052: Ensure the selected voltage falls
within the specified range

If you have above commits in topic/drivers branch first, the you can
cleanly apply below patches.
regulator: Fix da9052 ldo regulator names
regulator: Refactor to use one da9052_ldo_ops/da9052_dcdc_ops for all LDOs/DCDCs

I'm not sure if I should re-generate these 2 patches against
topic/drivers branch because
you will have conflict when merge them to for-next branch then.

Regards,
Axel
--
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/