[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkda6mzVdaN0cvOxpbsxWyCv2nGyDXOjZg_5aT8u7SSQeUw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 09:45:58 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: abdoulaye berthe <berthe.ab@...il.com>
Cc: Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>, Michael Buesch <m@...s.ch>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: removes all usage of gpiochip_remove retval
On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 10:28 PM, abdoulaye berthe <berthe.ab@...il.com> wrote:
> This patch updates users of gpiochip_remove return value.
>
> Signed-off-by: abdoulaye berthe <berthe.ab@...il.com>
This doesn't apply on my devel branch from the GPIO tree.
Did you really use that branch?
This looks more like it was based on the linux-next tree or
something.
BTW maybe it's better to split this patch in three:
- One that removes all users in drivers/gpio so I can
apply that to the GPIO tree, patch based on the GPIO
"devel" branch.
- One that removes all users in drivers/pinctrl based on
the pinctrl "devel" branch so I can apply that to the
pinctrl tree.
- One that removes the rest of the users, that I can maybe
just apply to the GPIO tree. This could use some ACKs
from the different maintainers, but if I don't get that I can
just apply it after some timeout.
Then we will apply the second patch actually changing
the gpiolib in the next merge window or late in the merge
cycle.
What do you say?
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