[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181022081718.GQ2302@lahna.fi.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 11:17:18 +0300
From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] pinctrl: intel: pinctrl-baytrail: simplify getting
.driver_data
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 12:19:51AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 10:00:27PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > We should get 'driver_data' from 'struct device' directly. Going via
> > platform_device is an unneeded step back and forth.
> >
>
> Thanks!
>
> I see only 3 out of 5 patches.
>
> Since we are about to establish a separate tree as well as an additional record
> in MAINTAINERS data base for Intel pinctrl driver, I ask you to resend only
> Intel related stuff in a separate series.
Well, it is easy enough to apply to our tree even if part of larger
series :) So no need to resend anything IMHO.
Looks good to me,
Acked-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists