On Friday 27 February 2009, Liam Girdwood wrote: > On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 16:02 -0800, David Brownell wrote: > > On Thursday 26 February 2009, Liam Girdwood wrote: > > > > > > > > Note that the twl4030 regulator patch referred to will need a > > > > minor patch to work with the -next tree, because of interface > > > > change in the regulator framework. > > > > > > Applied. > > > > .... and here's that "minor patch". > > > > ... > > Sorry, this didn't apply. It looks like I'm missing an earlier patch(s) > here. Could you regenerate this and your core patch against latest > for-next. The regulator -next tree seems to be missing a bunch of stuff... I generated this patch against a "twl4030-regulator.c" which I extracted *from that tree* yesterday. But today it's different. In this case, the current code doesn't have the $SUBJECT patch, which at that time you had applied. But it does have a small snippet from that "minor patch"... Color me confused. Are you asking for a "v3" of $SUBJECT, or is the "v2" going to re-appear? And when will that -next tree acquire the rest of http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=123567791402469&w=2 Having only the driver.h part of that patch breaks things (your 0ae0e667c8a2bacfe066b90f8f2ee3b4a83a120d). - Dave -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
