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

[Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Mika Westerberg
<mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.

We'll see. If there are internal conflicts in GPIO and pin control
I will get it in my face and deal with it when trying to create for-next
branches.

The conflict with staging is business as usual in linux-next.

Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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