On 3/15/23 15:35, Denis Pauk wrote:
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.
Done. You could avoid this kind of problem by keeping board names
in alphabetic order.
Guenter
