From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CCE7C433FE for ; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 10:22:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B848823B6B for ; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 10:21:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728866AbgLIKVo (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Dec 2020 05:21:44 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:54664 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728381AbgLIKVo (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Dec 2020 05:21:44 -0500 Received: from mail-lf1-x144.google.com (mail-lf1-x144.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::144]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85852C0613CF for ; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 02:21:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lf1-x144.google.com with SMTP id m19so2382739lfb.1 for ; Wed, 09 Dec 2020 02:21:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=rMI0CECIyqD9vuxo9krnxs3PVgofv8jhd/MMB9ewq5k=; b=TLqBgEsNohNpt3Wb719mQpnFGgMlv4h9kpqYTR/fYCbzd+VQMd6hg83tdJrtuxVWj5 JezvRM+xm8I4O3gHT67YijOfo8mzpzFK+Dc6tmkJjUt3zjXeqnLUPaxc91CSiP9xcbyp gX53vtXolVZSUtUQXQXCoRAUuBt3Mt9dFv/pShpv9kMZ1qDHeGs/6/Gwg+kuqHiUtMMo vFxHLr5aioHsW7B9S+e1G/iYUMQttYmOJzzvFkuy364ch3KuvMKs3JedcPnLyB1x5FFt QtcY7KjyZqRL1XjQx0fblGmOLwySZZSKmLh1TtVw0OupoyVx16Iuoh4O5PJejuIuKk2J NG+g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=rMI0CECIyqD9vuxo9krnxs3PVgofv8jhd/MMB9ewq5k=; b=ptQC4FZGuCMGdyTtk1RkH+Qb9i+SPrZSp9JI9UMtz1e0n5QT2hrtH4QHLfYSl2nPFr vLwPJNQU6vPWwmAwOAuzsngo+GXZDq5CTUFEBW7RY7T/nSY2PPoT1GC7DMDx+ng8j5Ez b4nHX1gLRpTfoAwrthY7AavU+7fWM6U3HVJJsGXUQ+baZpSJ4zoV/4RU9FDGu37H2wMo eiuoJO0fSEQ2f4fjWx1fDzzFTXgtq+LyscIsQIDTjBwm3QvRc9LlXPCf3EsCRrcNSKm9 L0thhCyqeI6vmV2VblstOCAfhuY382N2Ig7Cnu8ntL+emUW1RLRpATWpFbXX9snaF5JX u0tw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5334kjeYqOHGJu9WM7Rb6IfzeC5LH0EcRwQR/CR7Msf7Odg18Oog /cjGK9MmkBTgbSU2v6I1BQoPqBDkHGju+iS8LnsuZHjNxrbnSA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyWiG9LyXUa3QjRS3OqJcU1ciTbPmP4fQ7GteSGxpcEQecOpVlXes7j1IOg9ZBCnKjq1DfsveEuiC0lt8WaS0w= X-Received: by 2002:a19:ee1a:: with SMTP id g26mr735609lfb.465.1607509261981; Wed, 09 Dec 2020 02:21:01 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201209095248.22408-1-brgl@bgdev.pl> In-Reply-To: From: Linus Walleij Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 11:20:51 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] gpio: updates for v5.11-rc1 To: Bartosz Golaszewski Cc: Andy Shevchenko , "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" , Bartosz Golaszewski Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 11:13 AM Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 11:07 AM Linus Walleij wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 10:52 AM Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > > > > These are the patches I collected over this release cycle. Nothing all > > > too exciting - mainly just updates to drivers and refactoring of the > > > core code. Please pull. > > > > Nice! > > > > But I get a merge conflict in gpiolib-acpi.c! Since I said Andy should > > be maintaining that file it makes me a bit nervous. > > > > It looks like this: > > > > index 6cc5f91bfe2e,23fa9df8241d..000000000000 > > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c > > @@@ -586,6 -526,40 +586,43 @@@ static bool acpi_get_driver_gpio_data(s > > return false; > > } > > Strange, I didn't see any conflicts in next... > > > > > ++<<<<<<< HEAD > > ++======= > > + static enum gpiod_flags > > + acpi_gpio_to_gpiod_flags(const struct acpi_resource_gpio *agpio) > > + { > > + switch (agpio->io_restriction) { > > + case ACPI_IO_RESTRICT_INPUT: > > + return GPIOD_IN; > > + case ACPI_IO_RESTRICT_OUTPUT: > > + /* > > + * ACPI GPIO resources don't contain an initial value for the > > + * GPIO. Therefore we deduce that value from the pull field > > + * instead. If the pin is pulled up we assume default to be > > + * high, if it is pulled down we assume default to be low, > > + * otherwise we leave pin untouched. > > + */ > > + switch (agpio->pin_config) { > > + case ACPI_PIN_CONFIG_PULLUP: > > + return GPIOD_OUT_HIGH; > > + case ACPI_PIN_CONFIG_PULLDOWN: > > + return GPIOD_OUT_LOW; > > + default: > > + break; > > + } > > + break; > > This break is the only thing I have in my tree. Andy told me to take > that patch with his ack. It seems you don't have this function in your > tree - was it moved at some point? Hm yeah I have a bunch of ACPI things I pulled from Andy in my tree. I can try just -3 I guess. I assume the function shall be there. Yours, Linus Walleij