[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMRc=Mc1Du1D_-Xsgj6rtGqOd229J1dVqK3XXSx1Q3vvqM1sow@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 15:35:41 +0100
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] gpiolib: fix a regression introduced by gpio_do_set_config()
pon., 3 lut 2020 o 15:31 Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> napisaĆ(a):
>
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 02:30:23PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
> >
> > These three patches fix a regression introduced by commit d90f36851d65
> > ("gpiolib: have a single place of calling set_config()"). We first need
> > to revert patches that came on top of it, then apply the actual fix.
>
> Thank you for addressing this!
>
> It might be good to add Fixes / Depends-on to the first two, but I didn't look
> if they are in any of v5.5 or older release.
>
They're not - the patch in question was merged for v5.6 and then the
"fixes" came on top of it once it got into next. We're fine here IMO.
Bart
Powered by blists - more mailing lists