From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: boris brezillon Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: add missing word in gpio dt binding doc Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:33:55 +0100 Message-ID: <52B400F3.2020409@overkiz.com> References: <1387462890-675-1-git-send-email-b.brezillon@overkiz.com> <20131219191315.GP8064@book.gsilab.sittig.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from 9.mo3.mail-out.ovh.net ([87.98.184.141]:52448 "EHLO mo3.mail-out.ovh.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752657Ab3LTId6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Dec 2013 03:33:58 -0500 Received: from mail408.ha.ovh.net (b6.ovh.net [213.186.33.56]) by mo3.mail-out.ovh.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 2A397102C06A for ; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:33:57 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <20131219191315.GP8064@book.gsilab.sittig.org> Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org To: Rob Landley , Linus Walleij , Alexandre Courbot , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org On 19/12/2013 20:13, Gerhard Sittig wrote: > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 15:21 +0100, Boris BREZILLON wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Boris BREZILLON >> --- >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt >> index e2295e3..4019ce1 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt >> @@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ and empty GPIO flags as accepted by the "qe_pio_e" gpio-controller. >> 2) gpio-controller nodes >> ------------------------ >> >> -Every GPIO controller node must both an empty "gpio-controller" >> +Every GPIO controller node must contain both an empty "gpio-controller" >> property, and have #gpio-cells contain the size of the gpio-specifier. >> >> It might contain GPIO hog definitions. GPIO hogging is a mechanism providing >> -- >> 1.7.9.5 > The context of the patch appears to contain stuff that gets > introduced with the RFC patch you sent out after this one. If > this suspicion(sp?) is true, you may have to re-create the patch > on top of something official. Ooops. Your suspicions were true ;-). I'll send a new patch based on a clean context. Best Regards, Boris > :) And you may want to mark this > patch as "trivial". > > > virtually yours > Gerhard Sittig