On 5/17/22 00:09, Sam James wrote: >> On 16 May 2022, at 22:49, Helge Deller <deller@xxxxxx> wrote: >> >> [snip] > Hi Helge, > >> FWIW, I've done some cleanups to this patch and committed it to my for-next tree. >> In case it's split up, please use the revised version. >> > > Should I be testing with for-next (which contains this patch) or for-next-next (which has some smaller bits)? for-next is for v5.18. for-next-next is planed to for v5.19 so, please use for-next, since we want to get 5.18 finally fixed. Thanks! Helge
