Messages in this thread | | | From | Axel Lin <> | Date | Thu, 15 Mar 2012 07:42:53 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC/RFT 1/2] regulator: Fix da9052 ldo regulator names |
| |
2012/3/14 Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>: > On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 07:42:50AM +0800, Axel Lin wrote: >> The regulator name for LDOs are LDO4 ... LDO13 in current implementation. >> The correct regulator name for LDOs should be LDO1 ... LDO10. > > Can you please rebase this against -next? I was going to apply but some > of your other fixes end up conflicting with this and the second change.
hi Mark,
These two patches can be cleanly apply to -next branch.
I found the root of the conflict is because below commits are NOT in your topic/drivers branch. ( they are in for-next branch ). commit 4adf9beda5 regulator: Fix mask parameter in da9052_reg_update calls commit 7b95765 regulator: Set n_voltages for da9052 regulators commit 93651218 regulator: da9052: Ensure the selected voltage falls within the specified range
If you have above commits in topic/drivers branch first, the you can cleanly apply below patches. regulator: Fix da9052 ldo regulator names regulator: Refactor to use one da9052_ldo_ops/da9052_dcdc_ops for all LDOs/DCDCs
I'm not sure if I should re-generate these 2 patches against topic/drivers branch because you will have conflict when merge them to for-next branch then.
Regards, Axel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |