Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:7 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:7;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231013091831.60a032c2@canb.auug.org.au> <CACRpkdaEVUfFg-O53NBiyWPsjx0VZVMKK7o2ikUMSCy0_AJUGQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMuHMdX3LXZiRRAHSb1FU6nrgtPnyewbUwp7R9Rw2zbxziYz7w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMuHMdX3LXZiRRAHSb1FU6nrgtPnyewbUwp7R9Rw2zbxziYz7w@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 13 Oct 2023 09:14:40 +0200
Message-ID: <CACRpkdYNRyL-hywayP97PsLvhEk_Dm4HdnYHHo9N50GXMuxWCg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: duplicate patch in the pinctrl tree
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Ralph Siemsen <ralph.siemsen@linaro.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 9:10=E2=80=AFAM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68=
k.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 12:44=E2=80=AFAM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@lin=
aro.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 12:18=E2=80=AFAM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auu=
g.org.au> wrote:
> > > The following commit is also in Linus Torvalds' tree as a different c=
ommit
> > > (but the same patch):
> > >
> > >   73394a1b2194 ("pinctrl: renesas: rzn1: Enable missing PINMUX")
> > >
> > > This is commit
> > >
> > >   f055ff23c331 ("pinctrl: renesas: rzn1: Enable missing PINMUX")
> > >
> > > in Linus' tree.
> >
> > I had to fix up the commit message, sorry,
>
> The only difference is your added SoB?

No, I'm not that vain...

The merge commit got screwed up (random characters I don't know why).

So since it's just one patch I simply rebased the one patch to the top.

But if I do that, the tools will complain about "non-author signoff".
So I had to sign it off.

> > I'll rebuild my branch for -next.
>
> I'm afraid that won't help, as the original one (from
> renesas-pinctrl-fixes-for-v6.6) is also part of
> renesas-pinctrl-for-v6.7, which I'm gonna send you a PR for later today.
>
> I guess we'll just have to live with it?

It's fine if you drop it and rebase from my side, I understand the
hashes will be different but the content is the same so it is the
same tested.

But I guess there could be reasons for not to, so then we can
live with it I guess.

Yours,
Linus Walleij