On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 07:13:23AM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > On 10/6/22 19:17, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 05:36:52PM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > > > A few regulator consumer drivers seem to be just getting a regulator, > > > enabling it and registering a devm-action to disable the regulator at > > > the driver detach and then forget about it. > > > > > > We can simplify this a bit by adding a devm-helper for this pattern. > > > Add devm_regulator_get_enable() and devm_regulator_get_enable_optional() ... > > > (cherry picked from commit b6058e052b842a19c8bb639798d8692cd0e7589f) > > > > Not sure: > > - why this is in the commit message > > - what it points to, since > > $ git show b6058e052b842a19c8bb639798d8692cd0e7589f > > fatal: bad object b6058e052b842a19c8bb639798d8692cd0e7589f > > > > > Already in Mark's regulator tree. Not to be merged. Included just for > > > the sake of the completeness. Will be dropped when series is rebased on > > > top of the 6.1-rc1 > > > > Ah, I see, but does it mean the commit has been rebased or you used wrong SHA? > > I did probably cherry-pick this from my local development branch and not > from Mark's tree. Sorry for the confusion. I thought people would ignore > these first two patches when reviewing as was requested in cover-letter. The solution as pointed out by LKP and which will removes the need of the noise in email and a lot of confusions is to use --base parameter to the patch(es). -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
