On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Octavian Purdila > <octavian.purdila@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 1:52 AM, Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 12/16/2014 04:40 PM, Axel Lin wrote: >>>>> >>>>> dln2_gpio_direction_output() ignored the state passed into it. Fix it. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Axel Lin <axel.lin@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> >>>> Tested-by: Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@xxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> Acked-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> But this seems to apply to patches in mid-flight, could it be squashed >>> there maybe? >> >> Sure, I can add it to the existing series, but I prefer to keep it as >> separate patch. Is that ok with you? > > Why? This is clearly a fix, so if the series is not merged yet, > doesn't it make more sense to squash it and have the desired > functionality from the start? The fix is not for issues introduced by the series, but for an issue existing in the already merged code. Also it is a separate issue then the one fixed in the other patches in the series. AFAIK each fix should be in a separate patch, am I missing something? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html