From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Brownell Subject: Re: [patch/rfc 2.6.29-rc6 2/2] regulator: twl4030 voltage enumeration (v2) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:39:44 -0800 Message-ID: <200902271239.44558.david-b@pacbell.net> References: <200902081037.06645.david-b@pacbell.net> <200902261602.58832.david-b@pacbell.net> <1235737930.31223.117.camel@vega.slimlogic.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from n13a.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.207.51]:46947 "HELO n13a.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1761334AbZB0Ujs (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:39:48 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1235737930.31223.117.camel@vega.slimlogic.co.uk> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Liam Girdwood Cc: Mark Brown , lkml , OMAP On Friday 27 February 2009, Liam Girdwood wrote: > On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 16:02 -0800, David Brownell wrote: > > On Thursday 26 February 2009, Liam Girdwood wrote: > > > > > > > > Note that the twl4030 regulator patch referred to will need a > > > > minor patch to work with the -next tree, because of interface > > > > change in the regulator framework. > > > > > > Applied. > > > > .... and here's that "minor patch". > > > > ... > > Sorry, this didn't apply. It looks like I'm missing an earlier patch(s) > here. Could you regenerate this and your core patch against latest > for-next. The regulator -next tree seems to be missing a bunch of stuff... I generated this patch against a "twl4030-regulator.c" which I extracted *from that tree* yesterday. But today it's different. In this case, the current code doesn't have the $SUBJECT patch, which at that time you had applied. But it does have a small snippet from that "minor patch"... Color me confused. Are you asking for a "v3" of $SUBJECT, or is the "v2" going to re-appear? And when will that -next tree acquire the rest of http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=123567791402469&w=2 Having only the driver.h part of that patch breaks things (your 0ae0e667c8a2bacfe066b90f8f2ee3b4a83a120d). - Dave