[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdYTE0imxEAdq0=wJO49iBAj=8xGjn_PevFm1Bsr3MvUQg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 13:47:32 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Roland Stigge <stigge@...com.de>
Cc: cjb@...top.org, grant.likely@...retlab.ca, rob.herring@...xeda.com,
rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk, ulf.hansson@...ricsson.com,
linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
aletes.xgr@...il.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
spi-devel-general@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: spi-pl022: Adjust probe() to of_get_named_gpio()
returning -EPROBE_DEFER
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Roland Stigge <stigge@...com.de> wrote:
> The patch to gpiolib-of.c providing -EPROBE_DEFER as a hint to defer
> of_get_named_gpio*() to a later probe() breaks spi-pl022.c.
>
> This patch adjusts to this change, using -EPROBE_DEFER as indication to defer.
>
> Signed-off-by: Roland Stigge <stigge@...com.de>
Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
> Should this patch be joined with gpiolib-of's patch to of_get_named_gpio()? Or
> should they just be issued as a series?
If it's not bisectable unless you change this in the same patch then join
them. Else I'd put them in a series and try to figure out a good tree for
merging them.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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