Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 29 Nov 2023 05:09:57 -0500 | From | "Gabriel L. Somlo" <> | Subject | Re: (subset) [PATCH RFC 0/5] Deprecate register_restart_handler() |
| |
Hi Mark,
On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 04:48:29PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 10:10:01 -0600, Andrew Davis wrote: > > Explanation is in patch #1. > > > > The rest of this series is a set of representative examples of converting > > away from the old API. They should be valid and can be taken by their > > respective maintainers even if patch #1 doesn't find acceptance. > > > > Thanks, > > Andrew > > > > [...] > > Applied to > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/spi.git for-next > > Thanks! > > [4/5] spi: sprd: adi: Use devm_register_restart_handler() > commit: 8e6a43961f24cf841d3c0d199521d0b284d948b9
Any chance you can also pick up
[2/5] drivers/soc/litex: Use devm_register_restart_handler()
from this series?
I'm maintaining the LiteX (FPGA SoC) related drivers, but we don't as of yet have a dedicated "path to upstream" of our own -- we've been mostly going through specific subsystem trees (e.g. mmc, block, networking, etc.), for mostly device drivers, up until now...
If not, no worries, I need to dedicate some time to figuring this out eventually anyway :)
Thanks much, --Gabriel
> All being well this means that it will be integrated into the linux-next > tree (usually sometime in the next 24 hours) and sent to Linus during > the next merge window (or sooner if it is a bug fix), however if > problems are discovered then the patch may be dropped or reverted. > > You may get further e-mails resulting from automated or manual testing > and review of the tree, please engage with people reporting problems and > send followup patches addressing any issues that are reported if needed. > > If any updates are required or you are submitting further changes they > should be sent as incremental updates against current git, existing > patches will not be replaced. > > Please add any relevant lists and maintainers to the CCs when replying > to this mail. > > Thanks, > Mark >
| |