[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdaUQkjM3nFWn2aO-Jxy=tWEKWkEUmCA11Xuji2p2x82gg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:49:47 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Janusz Krzysztofik <jmkrzyszt@...il.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the regulator tree with the arm-soc tree
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 12:49:53AM +0200, Janusz Krzysztofik wrote:
>
>> I confirm the fix by Stephen works for me, however, the conflicting patch by
>> Linus breaks things a bit.
>
>> Lookup tables added to board files use function name "enable" while the
>> regulator uses NULL. As a result, GPIO descriptor is not matched and not
>> assigned to the regulator which ends up running with no control over GPIO pin.
>
>> Either the regulator driver should use the function name "enable" or that name
>> should be removed from lookup tables.
>
> I'll revert this one as well :(
I see this is a generic problem, no idea why I didn't pass these
unnamed as NULL in the first place, probably my ignorance as usual.
I fixed it up in my patch making them all anonymous and rebasing
the rest as well. Let's see how it looks after the merge window.
I will also need to rebase on top of Janusz changes and then it
will look even better.
Janusz: would be super if you could test my patches after that!
Yours,
Linus Walleij
Powered by blists - more mailing lists