[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMRc=Mc7bbaDA1g3gn79XJZL6bTPGf9xZsB3=A4oiMUggzb4kA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2023 22:15:29 +0200
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Cc: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: unittest: drop assertions for GPIO hog messages
On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 7:01 PM Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 8:36 AM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
> >
> > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
> >
> > These have now been demoted to debug and are normally hidden. Drop the
> > assertions entirely.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
> > ---
> > drivers/of/unittest.c | 28 ----------------------------
> > 1 file changed, 28 deletions(-)
>
> Why is this a separate patch? Don't I get at least 5 days to
> review/ack changes in drivers/of/?
>
Sorry, my bad, I queued the previous one through the GPIO tree after
it was reviewed here thinking the unittests bits are trivial. I can
back it out if you insist or you can ack this one and the end effect
is the same? I will pay attention in the future.
Bart
Powered by blists - more mailing lists