On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 00:17:49 +0200 Denis Pauk <pauk.denis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 00:04:53 +0200 > Denis Pauk <pauk.denis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 14:58:24 -0700 > > Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On 3/15/23 14:30, Denis Pauk wrote: > > > > On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 23:01:35 +0200 > > > > Denis Pauk <pauk.denis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Tested-by: Holger Kiehl <holger.kiehl@xxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Pro A520M-C II/CSM is also tested by Holger Kiehl > > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-hwmon/patch/868bdc4f-9d45-475c-963e-f5232a8b95@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > > > > Could it be applied as single patch or need to rebase over "Pro A520M-C > > > > II" patch? > > > > > > > Sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say. I just applied all > > > patches in sequence as received, with no conflicts. Should I undo that ? > > > > > > Guenter > > > > > > > No, Thank you! > > > > I just like to mention that Holger Kiehl sent separate patch with > > "Pro A520M-C II" support and it could create conflicts. I have found it only > > when I have sent my patches. > > > > I have rechecked repo and "Pro A520M-C II" is added twice after apply both of > patches (my and from Holger Kiehl), could you please remove one of mention of > it? I have resent updated version of this patch without duplication of adding "Pro A520M-C II", https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-hwmon/patch/20230315222702.1803-1-pauk.denis@xxxxxxxxx/ you could revert this patch and add apply new one, or fix this one. Thank you! Best regards, Denis.
