linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] i2c-mux-gpio: Split plat- and dt-specific code up

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <689e1a7b-8544-6bbf-2fa1-a5845895a917@axentia.se>
Date:   Tue, 7 May 2019 09:17:38 +0000
From:   Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
To:     Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>,
        Peter Korsgaard <peter.korsgaard@...co.com>
CC:     Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@...latforms.ru>,
        "linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] i2c-mux-gpio: Split plat- and dt-specific code up

On 2019-05-07 11:02, Serge Semin wrote:
> Hello folks,
> 
> Any updates on this patchset status? I haven't got any comment on v2, but
> instead a notification about the status change was sent to me:
> 
>> * linux-i2c: [v2,1/3] i2c-mux-gpio: Unpin a platform-based device initialization
>>     - http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1091120/
>>     - for: Linux I2C development
>>    was: New
>>    now: Superseded
>>
>> * linux-i2c: [v2,2/3] i2c-mux-gpio: Unpin the platform-specific GPIOs request code
>>     - http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1091122/
>>     - for: Linux I2C development
>>    was: New
>>    now: Superseded
>>
>> * linux-i2c: [v2,3/3] i2c-mux-gpio: Create of-based GPIOs request method
>>     - http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1091121/
>>     - for: Linux I2C development
>>    was: New
>>    now: Superseded
> 
> I may misunderstand something, but how come the v2 patchset switched to be superseded
> while it is the last patchset version I've sent?

That was my mistake. Patchwork got confused when v2 was sent as a reply to
something in the v1 tree, and marked all 8 patches as "v2". Then I in turn
got confused by that, and changed status on the wrong set. Sorry!

So, thanks for the heads up, it should be fixed now.

As for comments on the patches, I'm personally buried in work and others
may have the merge window to focus on...

Cheers,
Peter