> > Nope, they should be incremental, aren't they?
> >
> No, your patches don't apply on top of rtc-next
Looks like you edited some whitespaces to match opening parens before
applying? I'll resend to match these.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On 30/08/2019 15:00:35+0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
> > > > I'm confused because I already applied:
> > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/abelloni/linux.git/commit/?h=rtc-next=7150710f3084de8d35ce3221eeae2caee8813f92
> > >
> > > The above was a mass conversion to
> > > I'm confused because I already applied:
> > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/abelloni/linux.git/commit/?h=rtc-next=7150710f3084de8d35ce3221eeae2caee8813f92
> >
> > The above was a mass conversion to i2c_new_dummy_device() to make sure
> > all in-kernel users use the API
On 30/08/2019 14:45:54+0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:57:52PM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > On 20/08/2019 17:42:37+0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > > I was about to simplify the call to i2c_unregister_device() when I
> > > realized that converting to
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:57:52PM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> On 20/08/2019 17:42:37+0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > I was about to simplify the call to i2c_unregister_device() when I
> > realized that converting to devm_i2c_new_dummy_device() will simplify
> > the driver a lot. So I took
On 20/08/2019 17:42:37+0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> I was about to simplify the call to i2c_unregister_device() when I
> realized that converting to devm_i2c_new_dummy_device() will simplify
> the driver a lot. So I took this approach.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang
> ---
> Build tested only,
I was about to simplify the call to i2c_unregister_device() when I
realized that converting to devm_i2c_new_dummy_device() will simplify
the driver a lot. So I took this approach.
Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang
---
Build tested only, buildbot is happy, too.
Please apply to your tree.
7 matches
Mail list logo