On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 4:40 PM Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > We would like to consolidate Intel pure GPIO drivers, including PMICs and > some old x86 platforms, in one tree which is maintained by Intel. > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Pulled out v2 and applied this v3 instead! (BTW what you see is me travering my backlog in oldest-first order...) Yours, Linus Walleij
Re: [PATCH v1] MAINTAINERS: Do maintain Intel GPIO drivers via separate tree
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] MAINTAINERS: Do maintain Intel GPIO drivers via separate tree
- From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 23:07:48 +0100
- In-reply-to: <20181109154016.56157-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
- References: <20181109154016.56157-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
- References:
- [PATCH v1] MAINTAINERS: Do maintain Intel GPIO drivers via separate tree
- From: Andy Shevchenko
- [PATCH v1] MAINTAINERS: Do maintain Intel GPIO drivers via separate tree
- Prev by Date: [PATCH] pinctrl: mediatek: Convert to using %pOFn instead of device_node.name
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH RESEND V5 1/1] gpio: vf610: add optional clock support
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH v1] MAINTAINERS: Do maintain Intel GPIO drivers via separate tree
- Next by thread: [PATCH] pinctrl: msm: Add sleep pinctrl state transitions
- Index(es):
 |