> > > The tnetv107x platform is getting removed, so this driver > > > is not needed any more. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]> > > > Cc: Samuel Ortiz <[email protected]> > > > Cc: Lee Jones <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > drivers/mfd/Kconfig | 11 -- > > > drivers/mfd/Makefile | 1 - > > > drivers/mfd/ti-ssp.c | 465 > > > --------------------------------------------------- > > > 3 files changed, 477 deletions(-) > > > delete mode 100644 drivers/mfd/ti-ssp.c > > > > Applied, thanks. > > This makes me wonder whether you apply any patch you receive via email, > or whether you read the covering email first.
I did (miss-)read the cover letter first. > Arnd's 0/5 email said: > > However, I'm looking for an Ack from > Cyril Chemparathy and Sekhar Nori first, to be sure we > won't need this code in the future. I read this to mean "looking for an Ack from Cyril and Sekhar for patches which are due to go in via a different tree (ARM-SoC?)". My apologies for misreading. Patch removed from MFD -next until I get a further nod. > This is exactly the reason why I'd now recommend that if people want to > send out patches which they don't intend maintainers to take, that they > use "[PATCH RFC" in the subject _and_ they make sure that the patch can't > be trivially applied. That means maintainers have to (a) not notice the > RFC in the subject, and _then_ they have to intentionally fix the patch > before applying. Both taken together will be sufficient deterrent for > this kind of mistake happening. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
