Re: [GIT PULL] intel-pinctrl for 6.8-1

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 11:44:03PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 3:56 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Rather big (by amount of touched drivers and overall due to a couple of new
> > ones) PR for Intel pin control drivers. Has been for a while in Linux Next
> > without reported errors. Please, pull for v6.8-rc1.
> 
> Pulled in and resolved a minor merge conflict (which I guess was solved also
> in -next?)
> 
> diff --cc drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-baytrail.c
> index 3c8c02043481,9b76819e606a..000000000000
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-baytrail.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-baytrail.c
> @@@ -1173,7 -1136,7 +1136,11 @@@ static void byt_gpio_dbg_show(struct se
>                 void __iomem *conf_reg, *val_reg;
>                 const char *pull_str = NULL;
>                 const char *pull = NULL;
> ++<<<<<<< HEAD
>  +              unsigned long flags;
> ++=======
> +               const char *label;
> ++>>>>>>> 85a7d543f2d4c4893914b46c9236f45b3ad87573
>                 unsigned int pin;
> 
>                 pin = vg->soc->pins[i].number;
> 
> 
> Deleted both since label is defined inline, and this is how
> linux-next looks like as well.
> 
> I hope it's the right resolution!

Yes, Linux Next has the correct resolution and IIRC you were Cc'ed
to that thread where we discussed the conflict.

> The rest just applied cleanly.
> 
> Doing some test builds now before I push, thanks for all the nice
> work!

Thank you!
And happy holidays!

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko