Rafael, On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 08:05:00PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 9:41 PM Sakari Ailus > <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi Rafael, > > > > On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 09:07:31PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 6:14 PM Sakari Ailus > > > <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Rafael, > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 06:21:44PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 2:58 PM Sakari Ailus > > > > > <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > acpi_get_handle() uses the pathname argument to find a handle related to > > > > > > that pathname but it does not need to modify it. Make it const, in order > > > > > > to be able to pass const pathname to it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: "Moore, Robert" <robert.moore@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > Which patches in the rest of the series depend on this one? > > > > > > > > "ACPI: property: Parse data node string references in properties", i.e. > > > > patch 8 in this set. > > > > > > So I think I can apply the rest of the series, except for patch 8 and > > > patch 7 (as per the previous discussion) for the upcoming merge > > > window. > > > > > > Would that work? > > > > I suppose it would apply to this one, too? > > Patch [2/11] will come to the kernel from upstream ACPICA at one point. > > > Postponing these works for me. > > So I tried to apply the series without patches [2,7-8/11], but that > didn't work (patch [9/11] did not apply). > > Please resubmit without them or let's defer the entire series until we > get patch [2/11] from ACPICA. v2 sent, with these three patches dropped. Funnily enough, I saw no conflicts with your linux-next branch. git am is more picky than git rebase though. -- Kind regards, Sakari Ailus
