Hi Chanwoo,
I just noticed that one of my patches wound up in extcon-next as
commit a7d674db4612 ("extcon: max77843: Replace irqchip mask_invert
with unmask_base").
That patch has been applied too early and should be reverted/dropped,
as it depends on changes made in my regmap-irq refactoring series[1].
My commit message was overly broad and didn't communicate that fact,
however. Unmask registers are in fact broken right now so the patch
doesn't work as advertised and will break the driver.
For avoidance of doubt my other two extcon patches you took,
extcon: sm5502: Drop useless mask_invert flag on irqchip
extcon: rt8973a: Drop useless mask_invert flag on irqchip
are safe to take early and do not need to be reverted.
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
Best regards,
Aidan
On 22. 6. 29. 22:09, Aidan MacDonald wrote:
>
> Hi Chanwoo,
>
> I just noticed that one of my patches wound up in extcon-next as
> commit a7d674db4612 ("extcon: max77843: Replace irqchip mask_invert
> with unmask_base").
>
> That patch has been applied too early and should be reverted/dropped,
> as it depends on changes made in my regmap-irq refactoring series[1].
> My commit message was overly broad and didn't communicate that fact,
> however. Unmask registers are in fact broken right now so the patch
> doesn't work as advertised and will break the driver.
>
> For avoidance of doubt my other two extcon patches you took,
>
> extcon: sm5502: Drop useless mask_invert flag on irqchip
> extcon: rt8973a: Drop useless mask_invert flag on irqchip
>
> are safe to take early and do not need to be reverted.
>
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
>
> Best regards,
> Aidan
Hi Aidan,
Thanks for the report. I'll drop the patch
as you mentioned[1]
[1] "extcon: max77843: Replace irqchip mask_invert with unmask_base".
--
Best Regards,
Samsung Electronics
Chanwoo Choi