Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] pinctrl / gpio: Introduce .set_config() callback for GPIO chips

[Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 04:22:20PM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 02:45:04PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > Good, that's the one I knew about. But I also got another conflict
> > against pinctrl when applying on top of f9dd6f6cc63c ("Add linux-next
> > specific files for 20170123"):
> > 
> > Applying: pinctrl / gpio: Introduce .set_config() callback for GPIO chips
> > error: patch failed: drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-amd.c:756
> > error: drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-amd.c: patch does not apply
> > error: patch failed: drivers/staging/greybus/gpio.c:474
> > error: drivers/staging/greybus/gpio.c: patch does not apply
> > Patch failed at 0001 pinctrl / gpio: Introduce .set_config() callback for GPIO chips
> 
> I tried today's linux-next 766074e7818 ("Add linux-next specific files
> for 20170124") but only saw that GPIO conflict.
> 
> In any case I'm going to rebase my series on top of linux-gpio.git/devel
> and submit it as v3.

That said, it seems this v2 series applies cleanly to
linux-gpio.git/devel. There will be trivial conflict with the staging
tree because of 7f2e9de736e7 ("staging: greybus: fix checkpatch unsigned
warnings") but that's it.

LinusW, can you take the series as is or should I rebase it on top of
something else?

Thanks and sorry about the mess.
--
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