[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yfz0v7oqDkgfZyky@paasikivi.fi.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2022 11:41:19 +0200
From: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] device property: Don't split fwnode_get_irq*()
APIs in the code
On Fri, Feb 04, 2022 at 10:32:27AM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> I'd prefer to prepend this patch to the rest of the set I have and get it
> all merged through linux-pm tree, on the dependent patch reaches it.
I rebased mine on this patch and I was quite surprised to see it doesn't
conflict! So either way works fine for me.
Reviewed-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>
--
Sakari Ailus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists