On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 08:32:17AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > On Mon, 02 May 2016, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:31:44AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 9:38 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > From: Ville Syrjälä <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > GPIO lookup tables are supposed to be zero terminated. Let's do that > > > > and avoid accidentally walking off the end. > > > > > > > > Cc: Shobhit Kumar <[email protected]> > > > > Cc: Samuel Ortiz <[email protected]> > > > > Cc: Linus Walleij <[email protected]> > > > > Cc: Alexandre Courbot <[email protected]> > > > > Cc: Thierry Reding <[email protected]> > > > > Cc: Lee Jones <[email protected]> > > > > Cc: [email protected] > > > > Fixes: 61dd2ca2d44e ("mfd: intel_soc_pmic_core: Add lookup table for > > > > Panel Control as GPIO signal") > > > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <[email protected]> > > > > > > Acked-by: Linus Walleij <[email protected]> > > > > Applied to drm-intel trees, thanks for patch, reviews&acks. > > Do what now? How can you apply a patch for a subsystem you don't have > responsibility for? This is bound to cause merge conflicts.
Oh crap, I thought Linus' ack was for the mfd stuff and didn't bother double-checking with MAINTAINTERS. Should I throw it out again and you'll pick it up, or ok as such? Thanks, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
