On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 10:42 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Quoting Moritz Fischer (2020-09-14 19:41:38) > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 11:11:05AM +0300, Alexandru Ardelean wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 4:41 PM Alexandru Ardelean > > > <alexandru.ardelean@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > These patches synchronize the driver with the current state in the > > > > Analog Devices Linux tree: > > > > https://github.com/analogdevicesinc/linux/ > > > > > > > > They have been in the tree for about 2-3, so they did receive some > > > > testing. > > > > > > Ping on this series. > > > Do I need to do a re-send? > > I got this patch series twice. Not sure why. My fault here. Some Ctrl + R usage and not being attentive with the arguments. I think I added "*.patch" twice on the send-mail command. I did something similar [by accident] for some DMA patches. Apologies. I can do a re-send for this, if it helps. > > > > > I've applied the FPGA one, the other ones should go through the clock > > tree I think? > > Doesn't patch 6 rely on the FPGA patch? How can that driver build > without the header file? Yes it does depend on the FPGA patch. We can drop patch 6 for now, pending a merge to Linus' tree and then wait for the trickle-down. I don't mind waiting for these patches. I have plenty of backlog that I want to run through, and cleanup and then upstream. So, there is no hurry.
