Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 2 Mar 2022 19:52:33 +0530
From:   Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>
To:     Peter Geis <pgwipeout@gmail.com>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com>,
        Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>,
        Yifeng Zhao <yifeng.zhao@rock-chips.com>,
        Johan Jonker <jbx6244@gmail.com>,
        "open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org>,
        Michael Riesch <michael.riesch@wolfvision.net>,
        Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        arm-mail-list <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/8] dt-bindings: soc: grf: fix rk3568 usb definitions
Message-ID: <Yh99qVeALFN3X9te@matsya>
References: <20220228135700.1089526-1-pgwipeout@gmail.com>
 <20220228135700.1089526-2-pgwipeout@gmail.com>
 <CAMdYzYqs=iRY6uNzVSkHrrhPYFixXdbZjtwSpPOjf-6f8TXutw@mail.gmail.com>
 <Yh8n7XiJbaT4pZGD@matsya>
 <CAMdYzYrkDbr5mHYmAbqBoJJEKH8A5xXfRNuTiTn8q40vRJeCgA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMdYzYrkDbr5mHYmAbqBoJJEKH8A5xXfRNuTiTn8q40vRJeCgA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 02-03-22, 07:18, Peter Geis wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 3:16 AM Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 01-03-22, 09:52, Peter Geis wrote:
> > > Good Morning,
> > >
> > > Would it be possible to pull this patch individually, to fix the
> > > current error reported by Rob?
> >
> > This does not apply for me on phy-next. What was this based on..?
> 
> This is based on linux-next, which the applicable patch was accepted on 24 Feb.
> The original patch was correct, but it seems a merge error happened
> and these two lines were moved into an incorrect location.
> This patch corrects that, but I see on the original patch chain you
> are discussing reverting and reapplying to fix it.

Ok let me revert than so that it is easy for everyone to fix up

Thanks

-- 
~Vinod