On 08/10/2024 10:01, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 08/10/2024 09:56, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 10:36:37PM +0200, Javier Carrasco wrote: >>> The veml7700 contains the same chip as the veml6030 in a different >>> package with no interrupt line and no pin to select the I2C address, >>> which makes it suitable to be supported by the same bindings. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@xxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> .../devicetree/bindings/iio/light/vishay,veml6030.yaml | 16 +++++++++++++++- >>> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/light/vishay,veml6030.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/light/vishay,veml6030.yaml >>> index 6218273b0e86..53b55575efd3 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/light/vishay,veml6030.yaml >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/light/vishay,veml6030.yaml >> >> There is no such file in next. > > There was no in next from 4th of October, but I found it now. However > the diff chunks still do not fit. It seems you are sending multiple, > related patches. Organize your entire work in one patchset, so big > picture will be visible and any dependencies will be clear. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof > Hi Krzysztof, this series uses iio/testing as its base, as it requires patches that were applied to that branch. Apparently, they are not available in next, and that is the reason why the diff chunks don't fit. b4 automatically provides the base-id in the cover later, but I understand that you are not expecting a commit-id from the iio tree as the base to apply this patch. Sorry for that, I will rebase onto next as soon as the required patches are there as well. Best regards, Javier Carrasco
