lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [May]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/2] mfd: MAX8997: Support irq domain for Maxim MAX8997
On 05/11/2012 08:52 AM, Greg KH wrote:

> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 08:45:23AM +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>> On 05/11/2012 03:20 AM, Greg KH wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 07:54:48PM +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But, I posted following patchset related to MAX8997 driver.
>>>> This patchset support Extcon framework in extcon-max8997 driver to
>>>> control external connector instead of max8997-muic driver. So, first
>>>> patch add MAX8997 extcon driver(drivers/extcon/extcon-max8997.c) and
>>>> last patch remove old MAX8997 muic driver(drivers/misc/max8997-muic.c).
>>>> - https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/5/8/98
>>>>
>>>> This patchset was applied in below git repository of Greg Kroah-Hartman.
>>>> - http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/gregkh/driver-core.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/driver-core-next
>>>>
>>>> I think that this patchset should be applied on the git repository
>>>> of Greg Kroah-Hartman to remove possible conflict issue when merged.
>>>
>>> That's fine with me, should the MFD maintainer have been copied on this
>>> to get his signed-off-by on it?
>>>
>>
>> I knew that first patch written by Thomas Abraham has been already
>> confirmed ack message from MFD maintainer(Samuel Ortiz
>> <sameo@linux.intel.com>). You can check it on first patch and below git
>> repository of Mark Brown.
>
> Ok, but why didn't you cc: him and everyone else who acked and
> signed-off on that patch?
>

it is my mistake. I should have added maintainer related to first patch
as you said.
I will resend this patchset to all of people related to it now.

>> The below patch has occurred build break, so it was reverted by Mark
>> Brown. And then I did post this patchset with bug fix.
>>
>> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/broonie/regulator.git;a=commit;h=98d8618af37728f6e18e84110ddb99987b47dd12
>
> So does that mean this one is ok, but the older one isn't?
>
> confused, what exactly should I do here?
>


Sorry, I have not sufficient explanation about history of patchset.

The below was written by Thomas Abraham and it was applied on
regulator.git repository.
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/broonie/regulator.git;a=commit;h=98d8618af37728f6e18e84110ddb99987b47dd12

But, this patch had occurred build break, it was reported by Stephen
Rothwell when build max8997-muic driver(drivers/misc/max8997-muic.c) and
then this patch was reverted by Mark Brown. You can check reverted patch
on below patch.
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/broonie/regulator.git;a=commit;h=82b719b11fd750188c125078ad6a6c0d23219dfb

Then, I posted patchset ,which is based on patch written by Thomas Abraham,
to add support irq domain for Max MAX8997 interrupts with bug fix.

I had to modify max8997-muic driver to avoid build break, But previously
I added extcon-max8997 driver and remove old max8997-muic
driver(drivers/misc/max8997-muic.c).
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/5/8/98

So, I suggested that this patchset should be applied on the git reposity
of Greg
to remove possible conflict issue when merged because old max8997-muic
driver(drivers/misc/max8997-muic.c) is existed on regulator.git of Mark
Brown.

I am so sorry about obscure explanation of patchset history.

Best Regards,
Chanwoo Choi









\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-05-11 03:21    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans