From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] ReST conversion patches not applied yet Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 17:26:13 -0300 Message-ID: <20190731172613.32d65ad8@coco.lan> References: <20190731141734.1fa9ce64@lwn.net> <20190731202007.GI4369@sirena.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20190731202007.GI4369@sirena.org.uk> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Mark Brown Cc: Mark Rutland , Dave Kleikamp , alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, Linux Doc Mailing List , Maxime Ripard , jfs-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Meerwald-Stadler , Evgeniy Polyakov , linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, Lars-Peter Clausen , Jonathan Corbet , Alexander Shishkin , Chen-Yu Tsai , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Evgeniy Dushistov , Suzuki K Poulose , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Rob Herring , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Mathieu Poirier , samba-technical@lists.samba.org, Liam Girdwood linux List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Em Wed, 31 Jul 2019 21:20:07 +0100 Mark Brown escreveu: > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 02:17:34PM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > > Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > > > As promised, this is the rebased version of the patches that were not applied > > > from the /26 patch series because you had merge conflicts. > > > > > > They're all based on your docs-next branch, so should apply fine. > > > > > > The first one fixes all but one error with a broken reference. > > > > > > The only broken reference right now is due to a DT patch with was not > > > accepted (no idea why), but whose driver is upstream. > > > All but 5/6 applied, thanks. > > Oh, I still hadn't reviewed this version of the SPI stuff :( It is basically the one sent on that /26 patch series, just rebased on the top of docs-next. > There were outstanding questions about where it was going to get moved > to but if I read the diff correctly it looks like it didn't actually get > moved in the end? Yeah, it doesn't have the move. My understanding from our discussions is that we didn't reach a conclusion. In any case, I can send a separate patch with the move part once we reach an agreement about what's the best way to proceed (or you can do it directly, if you prefer so). Thanks, Mauro