* Nathan Chancellor <[email protected]> [190412 05:00]: > On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 01:56:57PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > Hi, > > > > * Daniel Lezcano <[email protected]> [190411 19:21]: > > > On 10/04/2019 22:07, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > * Daniel Lezcano <[email protected]> [190410 17:02]: > > > >> can you ask for an acked-by before pulling a patch in your tree? > > > > > > > > I certainly do ask and wait for acks where possible :) > > > > > > Ok, I may have missed them. > > > > > > > Note that I have not applied this patch. I just added > > > > Keerthy to Cc on this thread so maybe you misread the > > > > message earlier. My comment "seems like no other > > > > takers" was for Ladislav regarding somebody picking up > > > > his earlier work, not for picking up this patch :) > > > > > > Actually I was referring to the commit 592ea6bd1fad. Anyway as stated > > > above I could have miss your call. > > > > Hmm so commit 592ea6bd1fad was part of the PWM timer series > > that was posted several times from late 2017 to end of > > February 2018. I did not get any timer related acks or > > comments so I applied it together with the PWM timer > > changes. > > > > I'm guessing you may have accidentally checked out some > > older deja-vu branch from about a year ago? Commit > > 592ea6bd1fad is not related to this fix.. :) > > > > Just for the record, I said this patch fixes 592ea6bd1fad because > 592ea6bd1fad should have been marked this function as static, which > would have exposed that this function was unused and it could have > been removed at that time. I know it is a bit of a stretch for this > commit (would be more appropriate for 008258d995a6 to have it) but > that was my logic behind it. Not opposed to having it removed before > committing.
Oh OK yes they should have all become static with the PWM series. Regards, Tony
