On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 9:10 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 12:44 AM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 12:18 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > The following commit is also in Linus Torvalds' tree as a different commit
> > > (but the same patch):
> > >
> > > 73394a1b2194 ("pinctrl: renesas: rzn1: Enable missing PINMUX")
> > >
> > > This is commit
> > >
> > > f055ff23c331 ("pinctrl: renesas: rzn1: Enable missing PINMUX")
> > >
> > > in Linus' tree.
> >
> > I had to fix up the commit message, sorry,
>
> The only difference is your added SoB?
No, I'm not that vain...
The merge commit got screwed up (random characters I don't know why).
So since it's just one patch I simply rebased the one patch to the top.
But if I do that, the tools will complain about "non-author signoff".
So I had to sign it off.
> > I'll rebuild my branch for -next.
>
> I'm afraid that won't help, as the original one (from
> renesas-pinctrl-fixes-for-v6.6) is also part of
> renesas-pinctrl-for-v6.7, which I'm gonna send you a PR for later today.
>
> I guess we'll just have to live with it?
It's fine if you drop it and rebase from my side, I understand the
hashes will be different but the content is the same so it is the
same tested.
But I guess there could be reasons for not to, so then we can
live with it I guess.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
