Hi Sascha, > As it's not a regression or serious bug I applied it to next and not to > master. Oh. yes of course. Sry my typing was faster than my thinking. The next branch is the correct place for it. Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards, Stefan Christ On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 07:54:22PM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 11:56:05AM +0100, Stefan Christ wrote: > > Hi Sascha, > > > > > device_detect_by_name() should be safe to call, I don't think we need > > > this additional flag. Just always call device_detect_by_name(). We have > > > to drop the return value checking though. > > > > > > In fact we have the following patch in one of our internal customer > > > trees, this should be suitable for your issue, right? > > > > Yep. These two lines of code are sufficent for our use case ;-) Here is my: > > > > Tested-by: Stefan Christ <s.christ@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Will you apply that patch to master? > > As it's not a regression or serious bug I applied it to next and not to > master. > > Sascha > > -- > Pengutronix e.K. | | > Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | > Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | > Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
