[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170124142220.GK17297@lahna.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 16:22:20 +0200
From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
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