On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Bjorn Andersson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun 25 Sep 23:36 PDT 2016, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 2:36 AM, John Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > The following commit introduced a regression by not properly masking the
>> > calculated value.
>> >
>> > commit 47a01ee9a6c39fe1 ("pinctrl: qcom: Clear all function selection bits")
>
> Please use the format: Fixes: %h (\"%s\")
>
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: John Crispin <[email protected]>
>>
>> Now I'm confused how it ever worked.... but agreed, the code looks wrong.
>
> I agree, we should have seen some issues based on this, I presume we
> where "lucky".
>
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <[email protected]>
>>
>
> Reviewed-by: Bjorn Andersson <[email protected]>
>
> @Linus, the corrected patch appeared in v4.8-rc1, would you mind
> including this in a pull for v4.8?
I would have, had I been more attentive. And you even told me in person to
look at this :/ sorry.
Now I have the problem that I don't have the original patch in my inbox
at all: it might have been sent to some qcom-specific mailing list?
John: can you include the ACKs and resend with me on the To: line?
Yours,
Linus Walleij
On 03/10/2016 15:31, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Bjorn Andersson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sun 25 Sep 23:36 PDT 2016, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 2:36 AM, John Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> The following commit introduced a regression by not properly masking the
>>>> calculated value.
>>>>
>>>> commit 47a01ee9a6c39fe1 ("pinctrl: qcom: Clear all function selection bits")
>>
>> Please use the format: Fixes: %h (\"%s\")
>>
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: John Crispin <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> Now I'm confused how it ever worked.... but agreed, the code looks wrong.
>>
>> I agree, we should have seen some issues based on this, I presume we
>> where "lucky".
>>
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <[email protected]>
>>>
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Bjorn Andersson <[email protected]>
>>
>> @Linus, the corrected patch appeared in v4.8-rc1, would you mind
>> including this in a pull for v4.8?
>
> I would have, had I been more attentive. And you even told me in person to
> look at this :/ sorry.
>
> Now I have the problem that I don't have the original patch in my inbox
> at all: it might have been sent to some qcom-specific mailing list?
>
> John: can you include the ACKs and resend with me on the To: line?
>
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij
>
Sure, is there a patchwork where i can export it with all the Acks ?
John
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Linus Walleij <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Bjorn Andersson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sun 25 Sep 23:36 PDT 2016, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 2:36 AM, John Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> > The following commit introduced a regression by not properly masking the
>>> > calculated value.
>>> >
>>> > commit 47a01ee9a6c39fe1 ("pinctrl: qcom: Clear all function selection bits")
>>
>> Please use the format: Fixes: %h (\"%s\")
>>
>>> >
>>> > Signed-off-by: John Crispin <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> Now I'm confused how it ever worked.... but agreed, the code looks wrong.
>>
>> I agree, we should have seen some issues based on this, I presume we
>> where "lucky".
>>
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <[email protected]>
>>>
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Bjorn Andersson <[email protected]>
>>
>> @Linus, the corrected patch appeared in v4.8-rc1, would you mind
>> including this in a pull for v4.8?
>
> I would have, had I been more attentive. And you even told me in person to
> look at this :/ sorry.
>
> Now I have the problem that I don't have the original patch in my inbox
> at all: it might have been sent to some qcom-specific mailing list?
It hit my (linaro) spam for some reason. Must be a problem between the
sending side and how google mail classifies spam.
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 4:24 PM, John Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 03/10/2016 15:31, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> Now I have the problem that I don't have the original patch in my inbox
>> at all: it might have been sent to some qcom-specific mailing list?
>>
>> John: can you include the ACKs and resend with me on the To: line?
>>
>> Yours,
>> Linus Walleij
>>
>
> Sure, is there a patchwork where i can export it with all the Acks ?
Nevermind, I found the patch in my spam folder and applied it!
Thanks!
Yours,
Linus Walleij