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