linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] iio: srf08: add device tree binding for srf02 and srf10

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, 17 Aug 2017 15:30:17 +0100
From:   Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Cc:     Andreas Klinger <ak@...klinger.de>, knaack.h@....de,
        lars@...afoo.de, pmeerw@...erw.net, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
        linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] iio: srf08: add device tree binding for srf02
 and srf10

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 14:37:26 +0200
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 12:39:18PM +0200, Andreas Klinger wrote:
> > Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de> schrieb am Mon, 14. Aug 11:11:  
> > > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 10:59:41AM +0200, Andreas Klinger wrote:  
> > > > add trivial device tree binding "devantech,srf02" and "devantech,srf10"
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Andreas Klinger <ak@...klinger.de>
> > > > Acked-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/trivial-devices.txt | 2 ++  
> > > 
> > > Again: This file has moved since v4.12-rc1. Please rebase to v4.12 or
> > > even v4.13-rc5.
> > >   
> > 
> > Then i split the patch series up in two parts:
> > - patch with only device tree binding against >= v4.12
> > - everything else as patch series against git tree of IIO
> > 
> > Ok?  
> 
> Wooha, the master branch of iio.git is at v4.11? I see. So, this is the
> culprit, sorry! @Jonathan: is that the branch people should develop on,
> or is it your testing branch?
> 
Yeah, that's a dead end really.  Mostly developing against latest
mainline is the best bet (or latest recentish version).

Last time I tried to delete the master branch I think it broke the
web interface on kernel.org as it didn't know what branch to default
to.  Not tried it for a while.

Anyhow, I just pushed out my upstream as master so it should now be
a fairly random pull I did of Greg's tree but will include everything
that is in linux-next from IIO.

I'll try and remember to do that when I fast forward after he
has taken a pull request.

Jonathan