linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] pinctrl / gpio: Introduce .set

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 26 Jan 2017 15:29:55 +0100
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:     Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.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 Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Mika Westerberg
<mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 04:22:20PM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
>> 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.
>
> That said, it seems this v2 series applies cleanly to
> linux-gpio.git/devel. There will be trivial conflict with the staging
> tree because of 7f2e9de736e7 ("staging: greybus: fix checkpatch unsigned
> warnings") but that's it.

We'll see. If there are internal conflicts in GPIO and pin control
I will get it in my face and deal with it when trying to create for-next
branches.

The conflict with staging is business as usual in linux-next.

Yours,
Linus Walleij