Quoting Alexandru Ardelean (2020-09-22 23:22:33) > 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. Sure. Please resend it. > > > > > > > > > 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. Can you send me a signed tag with that patch? I can base this patch series on top of that. Or I can just apply it to clk tree and if nobody changes it in the meantime merge should work out in linux-next and linus' tree upstream.