Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 22 Sep 2020 16:27:27 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To:     Alex Dewar <alex.dewar90@gmail.com>
Cc:     Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
        devel@driverdev.osuosl.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>,
        Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>, linux-media@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH REBASE 0/3] atomisp: Rebased fixes
Message-ID: <20200922132727.GG4282@kadam>
References: <21f18dc2-a1bc-0a37-0336-fc35170a40e9@gmail.com>
 <20200922090914.20702-1-alex.dewar90@gmail.com>
 <20200922112729.313d454d@coco.lan>
 <f14fac45-d713-a6ee-f0be-906a6d971b43@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <f14fac45-d713-a6ee-f0be-906a6d971b43@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 12:02:33PM +0100, Alex Dewar wrote:
> On 22/09/2020 10:27, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Em Tue, 22 Sep 2020 10:09:07 +0100
> > Alex Dewar <alex.dewar90@gmail.com> escreveu:
> > 
> > > Hi Mauro,
> > > 
> > > I've rebased the patches now, but there is a slight hiccup. For patches 2
> > > and 3 of this series there will now be a conflict with commit 9289cdf39992
> > > ("staging: media: atomisp: Convert to GPIO descriptors") in Greg's tree.
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure what the best way to handle this is? The merge conflicts
> > > will be trivial (due to a conversion between the gpio_* and gpiod_*
> > > APIs), but I could alternatively send these last two patches in via
> > > Greg's tree if that's easier for people. Let me know what works.
> > Maybe the best would be to re-send those after the merge window, when
> > both patches will arrive upstream.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Mauro
> That sounds more sensible. I've also just noticed that I introduced a bug in
> the first patch when rebasing it :-/, so let's hold off on the whole series
> and I'll do a proper tidy and resend after the next merge window.

Is the bug the memory leak if lm3554_platform_data_func() fails?

regards,
dan carpenter