On Monday, January 28, 2019 8:21:56 AM CET Lee Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2019, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>
> > On 1/24/2019 5:51 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > Is anyone taking this or should I?
> >
> > Nobody replied to this yet. I was hoping this series to go through acpi
> > tree like the rest
On Thu, 24 Jan 2019, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 1/24/2019 5:51 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Is anyone taking this or should I?
>
> Nobody replied to this yet. I was hoping this series to go through acpi
> tree like the rest of the other fixes.
[post-vacation reply]
That's not how these things a
On 1/24/2019 5:51 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Is anyone taking this or should I?
Nobody replied to this yet. I was hoping this series to go through acpi
tree like the rest of the other fixes.
On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 12:19:57 AM CET Sinan Kaya wrote:
> After 'commit 5d32a66541c4 ("PCI/ACPI: Allow ACPI to be built without
> CONFIG_PCI set")' dependencies on CONFIG_PCI that previously were
> satisfied implicitly through dependencies on CONFIG_ACPI have to be
> specified directly.
>
>
After 'commit 5d32a66541c4 ("PCI/ACPI: Allow ACPI to be built without
CONFIG_PCI set")' dependencies on CONFIG_PCI that previously were
satisfied implicitly through dependencies on CONFIG_ACPI have to be
specified directly.
WARNING: unmet direct dependencies detected for I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM
5 matches
Mail list logo