On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Octavian Purdila <octavian.purdila@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Me or Torvalds? >> >> This looks more like a Wolfram patch to me if it should not >> go through IIO. >> > > Hi Linus, > > This patch fixes one issue introduced by "i2c / ACPI: Use 0 to > indicate that device does not have interrupt assigned" which I see it > is merged in the GPIO for-next branch. That is why I thought you will > pick it up, did I assume wrong? Aha yeah O already forgot that I merged that. That patch is not in -next, it is already in Torvalds' tree. So fixes can be merged directly through the IIO tree without any GPIO dependencies. Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
