Message ID | 20231218145559.2209291-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | [GIT,PULL] intel-pinctrl for 6.8-1 | expand |
On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 3:56 PM Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > Rather big (by amount of touched drivers and overall due to a couple of new > ones) PR for Intel pin control drivers. Has been for a while in Linux Next > without reported errors. Please, pull for v6.8-rc1. Pulled in and resolved a minor merge conflict (which I guess was solved also in -next?) diff --cc drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-baytrail.c index 3c8c02043481,9b76819e606a..000000000000 --- a/drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-baytrail.c +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-baytrail.c @@@ -1173,7 -1136,7 +1136,11 @@@ static void byt_gpio_dbg_show(struct se void __iomem *conf_reg, *val_reg; const char *pull_str = NULL; const char *pull = NULL; ++<<<<<<< HEAD + unsigned long flags; ++======= + const char *label; ++>>>>>>> 85a7d543f2d4c4893914b46c9236f45b3ad87573 unsigned int pin; pin = vg->soc->pins[i].number; Deleted both since label is defined inline, and this is how linux-next looks like as well. I hope it's the right resolution! The rest just applied cleanly. Doing some test builds now before I push, thanks for all the nice work! Yours, Linus Walleij
On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 11:44:03PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 3:56 PM Andy Shevchenko > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > Rather big (by amount of touched drivers and overall due to a couple of new > > ones) PR for Intel pin control drivers. Has been for a while in Linux Next > > without reported errors. Please, pull for v6.8-rc1. > > Pulled in and resolved a minor merge conflict (which I guess was solved also > in -next?) > > diff --cc drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-baytrail.c > index 3c8c02043481,9b76819e606a..000000000000 > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-baytrail.c > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-baytrail.c > @@@ -1173,7 -1136,7 +1136,11 @@@ static void byt_gpio_dbg_show(struct se > void __iomem *conf_reg, *val_reg; > const char *pull_str = NULL; > const char *pull = NULL; > ++<<<<<<< HEAD > + unsigned long flags; > ++======= > + const char *label; > ++>>>>>>> 85a7d543f2d4c4893914b46c9236f45b3ad87573 > unsigned int pin; > > pin = vg->soc->pins[i].number; > > > Deleted both since label is defined inline, and this is how > linux-next looks like as well. > > I hope it's the right resolution! Yes, Linux Next has the correct resolution and IIRC you were Cc'ed to that thread where we discussed the conflict. > The rest just applied cleanly. > > Doing some test builds now before I push, thanks for all the nice > work! Thank you! And happy holidays!