[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87f12a9e-df99-4308-9d4b-6dd28911bd00@orca.pet>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2025 19:05:16 +0200
From: Marcos Del Sol Vives <marcos@...a.pet>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>, Michael Walle <mwalle@...nel.org>,
Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] gpio: vortex: add new GPIO device driver
El 21/08/2025 a las 12:18, Marcos Del Sol Vives escribió:
> +#include <linux/types.h>
> +#include <linux/errno.h>
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> +#include <linux/ioport.h>
> +#include <linux/spinlock.h>
> +#include <linux/gpio/driver.h>
> +#include <linux/gpio/regmap.h>
> +#include <linux/regmap.h>
> +#include <linux/ioport.h>
> +#include <linux/types.h>
> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
I realized now that, despite checking over and over the patches before
sending to the mailing list, I forgot to clean up leftover includes from
previous versions of the driver.
I am fairly new to this procedure of merging patches. Should I later, after
a send a sensible amount of time has passed to let everyone voice their
opinion, send a new v4 version of the patch to fix these (and also clarify
the commit message on the regmap-gpio, as requested in another email),
or if accepted would maybe the person merging it sort this out?
Sorry for the mess,
Marcos
Powered by blists - more mailing lists