[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f14fac45-d713-a6ee-f0be-906a6d971b43@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 12:02:33 +0100
From: Alex Dewar <alex.dewar90@...il.com>
To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>
Cc: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH REBASE 0/3] atomisp: Rebased fixes
On 22/09/2020 10:27, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Tue, 22 Sep 2020 10:09:07 +0100
> Alex Dewar <alex.dewar90@...il.com> escreveu:
>
>> Hi Mauro,
>>
>> I've rebased the patches now, but there is a slight hiccup. For patches 2
>> and 3 of this series there will now be a conflict with commit 9289cdf39992
>> ("staging: media: atomisp: Convert to GPIO descriptors") in Greg's tree.
>>
>> I'm not sure what the best way to handle this is? The merge conflicts
>> will be trivial (due to a conversion between the gpio_* and gpiod_*
>> APIs), but I could alternatively send these last two patches in via
>> Greg's tree if that's easier for people. Let me know what works.
> Maybe the best would be to re-send those after the merge window, when
> both patches will arrive upstream.
>
> Thanks,
> Mauro
That sounds more sensible. I've also just noticed that I introduced a
bug in the first patch when rebasing it :-/, so let's hold off on the
whole series and I'll do a proper tidy and resend after the next merge
window.
Best,
Alex
Powered by blists - more mailing lists