Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20191007115009.25672-1-axel.lin@ingics.com> <20191007115009.25672-2-axel.lin@ingics.com>
 <CAFRkauCW5-+u6npP2fpAaNL5kPdKXQ_wWrZ_7qZkJr=uMP1BsA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20191008104407.GA4382@sirena.co.uk> <CAFRkauDq=6X9LRj7APwKOV+7CVZN5OSVuWXmwBQ3QQPWD9Nauw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20191008105101.GB4382@sirena.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20191008105101.GB4382@sirena.co.uk>
From:   Axel Lin <axel.lin@ingics.com>
Date:   Tue, 8 Oct 2019 18:53:22 +0800
Message-ID: <CAFRkauCft5p4P_LkZVLde62Yh03p-_2hNPm6wEct5XSeg-p0Bg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND][PATCH 2/2] regulator: da9062: Simplify
 da9062_buck_set_mode for BUCK_MODE_MANUAL case
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc:     Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensource@diasemi.com>,
        Support Opensource <support.opensource@diasemi.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Adam Thomson <Adam.Thomson.Opensource@diasemi.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> =E6=96=BC 2019=E5=B9=B410=E6=9C=888=E6=97=
=A5 =E9=80=B1=E4=BA=8C =E4=B8=8B=E5=8D=886:51=E5=AF=AB=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A
>
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 06:48:15PM +0800, Axel Lin wrote:
> > Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> =E6=96=BC 2019=E5=B9=B410=E6=9C=888=E6=
=97=A5 =E9=80=B1=E4=BA=8C =E4=B8=8B=E5=8D=886:44=E5=AF=AB=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A
>
> > > It doesn't seem to apply against current code.
>
> > I just test apply it and It looks fine to be applied by linux-next tree=
.
> > Or which branch of regulator tree should I generate the patch?
>
> Well, I queued it for 5.5.  I've not seen if it's got dependencies
> against 5.4 yet but you chased me so...

Ok, I see the problem.
commit a72865f05782 ("regulator: da9062: fix suspend_enable/disable
preparation") is in for-5.4 branch
but not in for-5.5 branch. So it does not apply to for-5.5 branch.

But if I generate the patch on for-5.5 branch, I think you will get
conflict when merge for-5.4 and for-5.5 to for-next.