On 05/08/2024 18:01, Lee Jones wrote: > On Mon, 05 Aug 2024, Lee Jones wrote: > >> On Mon, 05 Aug 2024 16:49:45 +0200, Javier Carrasco wrote: >>> The iterated nodes are direct children of the device node, and the >>> `device_for_each_child_node()` macro accounts for child node >>> availability. >>> >>> `fwnode_for_each_available_child_node()` is meant to access the child >>> nodes of an fwnode, and therefore not direct child nodes of the device >>> node. >>> >>> [...] >> >> Applied, thanks! >> >> [2/4] leds: pca995x: use device_for_each_child_node() to access device child nodes >> commit: 6eefd65ba6ae29ab801f6461e59c10f93dd496f8 > > I'm not sure what you rebased onto, but it wasn't LEDs or -next. > > Anyway, I fixed-up the conflicts and pushed. > > The patch should be in -next by tomorrow. > > Please check it to ensure I didn't make any mistakes. > Hi, I rebased onto next-20240805, and its commit ID matches the base-commit provided in the cover letter (generated by b4). I wonder why it did not work on your side, but thanks for fixing the conflicts and applying (I checked it and it looks fine). Best regards, Javier Carrasco
