On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 05:24:39PM +0100, Stephen Kitt wrote:
> The i2c probe functions here don't use the id information provided in
> their second argument, so the single-parameter i2c probe function
> ("probe_new") can be used instead.
This is going to generate conflicts with other pending and more
substantial patches for wm8731 - please resubmit after those have been
applied, or split up into finer grained patches so the rest can go.
On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 17:14:40 +0000, Mark Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 05:24:39PM +0100, Stephen Kitt wrote:
> > The i2c probe functions here don't use the id information provided in
> > their second argument, so the single-parameter i2c probe function
> > ("probe_new") can be used instead.
>
> This is going to generate conflicts with other pending and more
> substantial patches for wm8731 - please resubmit after those have been
> applied, or split up into finer grained patches so the rest can go.
Ah right, I’ll re-submit without wm8731.
Which tree should I check for conflicts? I’ve got similar patches across all
the i2c-using sound/soc/codecs files, I wouldn’t want to waste anyone’s time
if I can check beforehand...
Regards,
Stephen
On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 06:26:16PM +0100, Stephen Kitt wrote:
> Which tree should I check for conflicts? I’ve got similar patches across all
> the i2c-using sound/soc/codecs files, I wouldn’t want to waste anyone’s time
> if I can check beforehand...
Since we're in the merge window non-fixes patches just aren't getting
applied at the minute, you need to follow what's going on on the list at
the minute.