Re: [PATCH 0/6] ReST conversion patches not applied yet

From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@infradead.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org,
	Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@bootlin.com>,
	samba-technical@lists.samba.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
	linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
	Evgeniy Dushistov <dushistov@mail.ru>,
	Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>,
	Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@pmeerw.net>,
	Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>,
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
	Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
	linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@kernel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@ioremap.net>,
	Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	jfs-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@gmx.de>,
	linux-spi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] ReST conversion patches not applied yet
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 17:26:13 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190731172613.32d65ad8@coco.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190731202007.GI4369@sirena.org.uk>

Em Wed, 31 Jul 2019 21:20:07 +0100
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> escreveu:

> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 02:17:34PM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org> wrote:  
> 
> > > As promised, this is the rebased version of the patches that were not applied
> > > from the /26 patch series because you had merge conflicts.
> > > 
> > > They're all based on your docs-next branch, so should apply fine.
> > > 
> > > The first one fixes all but one error with a broken reference.
> > > 
> > > The only broken reference right now is due to a DT patch with was not
> > > accepted (no idea why), but whose driver is upstream.  
> 
> > All but 5/6 applied, thanks.  
> 
> Oh, I still hadn't reviewed this version of the SPI stuff :(

It is basically the one sent on that /26 patch series, just rebased
on the top of docs-next.

> There were outstanding questions about where it was going to get moved
> to but if I read the diff correctly it looks like it didn't actually get
> moved in the end?

Yeah, it doesn't have the move. My understanding from our discussions
is that we didn't reach a conclusion.

In any case, I can send a separate patch with the move part once
we reach an agreement about what's the best way to proceed (or you
can do it directly, if you prefer so).

Thanks,
Mauro