[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <14cd5fee-23f8-4265-96e7-22a5457627da@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2024 22:45:58 +0200
From: Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@...il.com>
To: Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>, Jean Delvare
<jdelvare@...e.com>, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Marcin Wojtas <marcin.s.wojtas@...il.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, "David S. Miller"
<davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>
Cc: linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org, linux-leds@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: (subset) [PATCH v3 2/4] leds: pca995x: use
device_for_each_child_node() to access device child nodes
On 05/08/2024 18:01, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Aug 2024, Lee Jones wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 05 Aug 2024 16:49:45 +0200, Javier Carrasco wrote:
>>> The iterated nodes are direct children of the device node, and the
>>> `device_for_each_child_node()` macro accounts for child node
>>> availability.
>>>
>>> `fwnode_for_each_available_child_node()` is meant to access the child
>>> nodes of an fwnode, and therefore not direct child nodes of the device
>>> node.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> Applied, thanks!
>>
>> [2/4] leds: pca995x: use device_for_each_child_node() to access device child nodes
>> commit: 6eefd65ba6ae29ab801f6461e59c10f93dd496f8
>
> I'm not sure what you rebased onto, but it wasn't LEDs or -next.
>
> Anyway, I fixed-up the conflicts and pushed.
>
> The patch should be in -next by tomorrow.
>
> Please check it to ensure I didn't make any mistakes.
>
Hi, I rebased onto next-20240805, and its commit ID matches the
base-commit provided in the cover letter (generated by b4). I wonder why
it did not work on your side, but thanks for fixing the conflicts and
applying (I checked it and it looks fine).
Best regards,
Javier Carrasco
Powered by blists - more mailing lists