On Tue, 11 Sep 2018, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 11:56:49AM +0200, Nicolas Ferre wrote: > > On 11/09/2018 at 11:44, Lee Jones wrote: > > > On Tue, 11 Sep 2018, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 09:45:48AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 10 Sep 2018, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Enjoy! > > > > > > > > > > > > The following changes since commit 5b394b2ddf0347bef56e50c69a58773c94343ff3: > > > > > > > > > > > > Linux 4.19-rc1 (2018-08-26 14:11:59 -0700) > > > > > > > > > > > > are available in the Git repository at: > > > > > > > > > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lee/mfd.git tags/ib-mfd-spi-tty-v4.20 > > > > > > > > > > > > for you to fetch changes up to c24d25317a7c6bb3053d4c193b3cf57d1e9a3e4b: > > > > > > > > > > > > tty/serial: atmel: Change the driver to work under at91-usart MFD (2018-09-10 16:12:43 +0100) > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Immutable branch between MFD, SPI and TTY due for the v4.20 merge window > > > > > > > > > > Due to a comedy of errors, I'm voiding this pull-request. > > > > > > > > Um, I can't do that as my tree can not be rebased :( > > > > > > Oh dear. :( > > > > > > > I can take follow-on patches, so I will go apply the patch posted so > > > > that my tree builds again. I recommend you just apply it as well. > > > > > > What a pickle. As per my last email, it looks as though this set was > > > applied under false pretences. The MFD patch which was carrying my > > > Ack was doing so incorrectly. The author mistakenly applied it to the > > > wrong patch. After re-review (actually initial review) I wish to NACK > > > the implementation. > > > > What? We discussed this to the bone! > > > > Radu followed all the recommendations, collected all the feedback from major > > subsystems SPI and USART, resent the series again. > > > > It was then forgotten. Wrong series was finally applied (which could trigger > > 0-day reports, I warn you)... and now we are discussing about the > > implementation of *v2* (we're at v12)! This situation is frustrating. The reason I was not part of the discussion can be attributed to an erroneous application of my Ack earlier in the review process. Anyway ... since Greg has applied the pull-request I do agree that the path of least friction would be just to apply the set. :( > > > My suggestion would be to sit tight, rather than do anything rash and > > > see how this plays out. After which we can fix your tree. > > > > Come on, Greg's tree is fixed now. We can catch-up with v11..v12 changes > > with patches and cleanup the mess together. > > > > Just one misalignment with one patch merged for v4.19-rc1, fixed the same > > day, cannot generate such a reaction after months of development. > > I agree, my tree is now fixed, no harm done. Just apply the same patch > to whomever also pulled it into their trees and all is good. Have you applied Nicolas' patch already? Without discussion? :(( -- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Linaro Services Technical Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
