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  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]
Date:   Tue, 24 Jan 2017 16:22:20 +0200
From:   Mika Westerberg <>
To:     Johan Hovold <>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <>,
        Alexandre Courbot <>,
        Andy Shevchenko <>,
        Neil Armstrong <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] pinctrl / gpio: Introduce .set_config() callback
 for GPIO chips

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 02:45:04PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> 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.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists