On Fri, 11 Mar 2016, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
On Friday 11 March 2016 02:09 PM, Lee Jones wrote:For quick accptance, just submit using the normal un-MACRO'ed
On Wed, 09 Mar 2016, Laxman Dewangan wrote:OK, so can I use the local initializations in my max77620 patches
On Wednesday 02 March 2016 06:38 PM, Lee Jones wrote:Nothing is going to happen until v4.6 now. It's too late in the
On Mon, 29 Feb 2016, Laxman Dewangan wrote:Did you get chance to look into this? Probably, I need to send my
On Friday 26 February 2016 10:05 PM, Rhyland Klein wrote:I'll have a re-think about this.
Did you not see warnings like this when you compiled the kernel? Did youI think the following change also crash in runtime:
find a different approach than what I proposed above to deal with it?
I'd like to get this in soon so that when the max77620 drivers are all
in and using it, it should be functional.
Author: Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx>
mfd: ab8500: Provide a small example using new MFD cell MACROs
Should we have something MFD_CELL_RES, MFD_CELL_RES_PDATA,
MFD_CELL_PDATA, for more common user and not to pass the NULL here.
mfd series once this get fixed before that series applied.
release cycle to be making such a significant addition, and I'd like
the change to sit in -next for a good while before going in.
Then later we can have cleanups for part only?
This is because if we get in next release then there is some other
sub modules of the max77620 like clocks, watchdog, power etc which
can go on their subsystem if common header is available.
Sorry if I am asking too much..