lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Feb]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 0/9] device connection: Add support for device graphs
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 09:07:27AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 02:47:15PM +0200, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 11:10:44AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 10:45:48AM +0300, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > This is the third version of my proposal to add device graph parsing
> > > > to the device connection API. There was only one problem reported in
> > > > v2 by Jun - kernel-doc entry was missing for the new fwnode member in
> > > > struct usb_role_switch_desc - and it's now fixed.
> > > >
> > > > The second version of the series:
> > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/30/622
> > > >
> > > > The commit message from v1:
> > > >
> > > > This series adds support for OF and ACPI device graph parsing to the
> > > > device connection API.
> > > >
> > > > Handling the graph is straightforward, but because I'm adding that
> > > > fwnode member to struct device_connection, I had to make sure all the
> > > > existing users consider it.
> > > >
> > > > The plan is to only support matching with fwnode in the future, so no
> > > > more device name matching. The software fwnodes that we now have in
> > > > kernel should make that possible, once we add support for references
> > > > to them.
> > > >
> > > > The original RFC:
> > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/10/24/619
> > >
> > > All now merged, thanks.
> >
> > It looks like you have not followed the order of the patches in this
> > series.
> >
> > You applied at least the patch 4/9 ("device connection: Add fwnode
> > member to struct device_connection") as the last patch to your
> > usb-next branch. The rest of the series, patches starting from 5/9,
> > depend on that patch.
>
> Ugh, did I just apply them out of order? I can't rewrite my tree now,
> sorry about that, odd that my sorting didn't work.
>
> I think all of the patches are now in the tree, so I didn't miss
> anything, is there anything I can do now? Want me to revert them and
> then add them back in the correct order?

The problem is with bisecting, so I'm not sure if reverting helps. I
don't think there's anything else that can be done about this now.


thanks,

--
heikki

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-02-18 09:51    [W:0.044 / U:7.616 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site