On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 09:23:57AM +0100, Sergio Paracuellos wrote: > On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 3:02 AM NeilBrown <n...@brown.name> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 31 2018, Sergio Paracuellos wrote: > > > > > dt_node_to_map and dt_free_map operations can use pinconf-generic API's > > > instead of redefine operations in the driver. Make use of them cleaning > > > a bit driver's code. > > > > > > Update DT accordly to make sure used bindings property in code match > > > with the board's DT bindings. > > > > > > Changes are only compile-tested. > > > > Thanks. This appears to work for me. > > It is awkward to test pinctrl changes because the firmware preconfigures > > all the pins, so the hardware will work correctly if pinctrl does > > nothing. > > So I change the dts file to mis-configure some pins for driving LEDs, > > and checked that the LEDs broken. The fixed the dts, and the LEDs > > started working again. > > I think that will have to do. > > > > Tested-by: NeilBrown <n...@brown.name> > > > > Thanks, > > NeilBrown > > Cool! Thanks for testing and let me know. > > So, I sent this patch which solves a problem: > > http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/pipermail/driverdev-devel/2018-December/130260.html > > And this new patch is generated with that applied. Also this patch > solves the original problem > also and seems the way to go... Should be better to re-do this one > with all the fixed and reported by > tags added as a solution? > > What do you prefer, Greg?
I'm sorry, but I do not understand. Is this 2 patch series not acceptable to merge? Should I drop it and use some other patch series? Should I ignore some other patch series? totally confused, greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
