Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753882AbcJCUy0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Oct 2016 16:54:26 -0400 Received: from mail-it0-f51.google.com ([209.85.214.51]:33444 "EHLO mail-it0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752306AbcJCUyR (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Oct 2016 16:54:17 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1473673015-33124-1-git-send-email-john@phrozen.org> <20160926155209.GC7509@tuxbot> From: Stephen Boyd Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 13:53:55 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: qcom: fix masking of pinmux functions To: Linus Walleij Cc: Bjorn Andersson , John Crispin , "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" , Linux Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1390 Lines: 38 On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Bjorn Andersson > wrote: >> On Sun 25 Sep 23:36 PDT 2016, Stephen Boyd wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 2:36 AM, John Crispin 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 >>> >>> 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 >>> >> >> Reviewed-by: Bjorn Andersson >> >> @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.