[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210712091130.2096cf23@aktux>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2021 09:11:30 +0200
From: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, lars@...afoo.de,
sre@...nel.org, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
letux-kernel@...nphoenux.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] power: supply: rn5t618: Add voltage_now property
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 11:20:39 +0100
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 13:36:37 +0200
> Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info> wrote:
>
> > Read voltage_now via IIO and provide the property.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>
> > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
> Huh? Seems unlikely it pointed out that this patch was necessary in general.
> If highlighting a particular fix in an earlier version, then state what it was
> in the commit message. Note for fixes that get rolled into patches, it's
> often just mentioned in the change log and we skip the tag because it can
> cause confusion.
>
The robot found a problem in v1 (missing depends on IIO). It is fixed
now. The message from the bot tells to add a tag. It seems not to make
sense. But probably the bot is also running on public branches (which
will not be rebase) and uses the same message where it actually makes
sense.
I will send a v3 with that tag removed and the other comment addressed.
Regards,
Andreas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists