| Message ID | 20250211072841.7713-1-sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | int3472: Support GPIO con_id based on _HID | expand |
On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 09:28:38AM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote: > One patch turned into a set, the second patch being the original one. > > since v6: > > - Reword the comment regarding GPIO map processing. Hans, Ilpo, I think this is in good enough shape (the order of the checks I'm still not happy about we can amend later on if required). Can it be taken?
Hi, On 11-Feb-25 11:06 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 09:28:38AM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote: >> One patch turned into a set, the second patch being the original one. >> >> since v6: >> >> - Reword the comment regarding GPIO map processing. > > Hans, Ilpo, I think this is in good enough shape > (the order of the checks I'm still not happy about > we can amend later on if required). Can it be taken? Yes this looks good to me. Ilpo can you merge these 3 as fixes for the 6.14 cycle ? Regards, Hans
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 11-Feb-25 11:06 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 09:28:38AM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote: > >> One patch turned into a set, the second patch being the original one. > >> > >> since v6: > >> > >> - Reword the comment regarding GPIO map processing. > > > > Hans, Ilpo, I think this is in good enough shape > > (the order of the checks I'm still not happy about > > we can amend later on if required). Can it be taken? > > Yes this looks good to me. Ilpo can you merge these 3 as fixes > for the 6.14 cycle ? Currently, these don't appear in lore for some reason (not in patchwork)... Sakari, could you please resend the series v7 so that it hopefully gets picked up by lore and is easier for me to apply them using the normal tools I've. The last patch IMO falls outside of even borderline for fixes. I think I'll put it into for-next after merging the two first ones from fixes branch into for-next.
On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 04:32:12PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > On Tue, 11 Feb 2025, Hans de Goede wrote: ... > Currently, these don't appear in lore for some reason (not in > patchwork)... FWIW, lore seems down. DDoS on kernel.org? (I dunno) > Sakari, could you please resend the series v7 so that it hopefully gets > picked up by lore and is easier for me to apply them using the normal > tools I've. Usually lore picks them up when it restores. But it's up to you, of course, how to proceed. Just my 2c.
Hi Ilpo, On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 04:32:12PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > On Tue, 11 Feb 2025, Hans de Goede wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > On 11-Feb-25 11:06 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 09:28:38AM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > >> One patch turned into a set, the second patch being the original one. > > >> > > >> since v6: > > >> > > >> - Reword the comment regarding GPIO map processing. > > > > > > Hans, Ilpo, I think this is in good enough shape > > > (the order of the checks I'm still not happy about > > > we can amend later on if required). Can it be taken? > > > > Yes this looks good to me. Ilpo can you merge these 3 as fixes > > for the 6.14 cycle ? > > Currently, these don't appear in lore for some reason (not in > patchwork)... > > Sakari, could you please resend the series v7 so that it hopefully gets > picked up by lore and is easier for me to apply them using the normal > tools I've. Lore is up again, getting the patches from there should therefore work (I tried it). > > The last patch IMO falls outside of even borderline for fixes. I think > I'll put it into for-next after merging the two first ones from fixes > branch into for-next. Sounds reasonable.
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025, Sakari Ailus wrote: > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 04:32:12PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > > On Tue, 11 Feb 2025, Hans de Goede wrote: > > > On 11-Feb-25 11:06 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 09:28:38AM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > > >> One patch turned into a set, the second patch being the original one. > > > >> > > > >> since v6: > > > >> > > > >> - Reword the comment regarding GPIO map processing. > > > > > > > > Hans, Ilpo, I think this is in good enough shape > > > > (the order of the checks I'm still not happy about > > > > we can amend later on if required). Can it be taken? > > > > > > Yes this looks good to me. Ilpo can you merge these 3 as fixes > > > for the 6.14 cycle ? > > > > Currently, these don't appear in lore for some reason (not in > > patchwork)... > > > > Sakari, could you please resend the series v7 so that it hopefully gets > > picked up by lore and is easier for me to apply them using the normal > > tools I've. > > Lore is up again, getting the patches from there should therefore work (I > tried it). > > > > > The last patch IMO falls outside of even borderline for fixes. I think > > I'll put it into for-next after merging the two first ones from fixes > > branch into for-next. > > Sounds reasonable. Patches 1 & 2 are now in the review-ilpo-fixes branch.
On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 07:28:51PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> Patches 1 & 2 are now in the review-ilpo-fixes branch.
Thank you!
One patch turned into a set, the second patch being the original one. since v6: - Reword the comment regarding GPIO map processing. Sakari Ailus (3): platform/x86: int3472: Use correct type for "polarity", call it gpio_flags platform/x86: int3472: Call "reset" GPIO "enable" for INT347E platform/x86: int3472: Call "func" "con_id" instead drivers/platform/x86/intel/int3472/discrete.c | 105 +++++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 75 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)