From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Doug Anderson Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: core: Clean enabling always-on regulators + their supplies Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 08:21:52 -0800 Message-ID: References: <20181206222318.240401-1-dianders@chromium.org> <20181210154311.GF6307@sirena.org.uk> <20181211005221.GB3004@sirena.org.uk> <20181211010032.GE3004@sirena.org.uk> <20181211140609.GD6686@sirena.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20181211140609.GD6686@sirena.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Brown Cc: linux-arm-msm , Dmitry Osipenko , Evan Green , masneyb@onstation.org, Liam Girdwood , LKML List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 6:06 AM Mark Brown wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 06:40:53PM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote: > > > Can you confirm my patch applies cleanly to your for-next branch? I > > can see that it doesn't apply to your 4.21 branch but I can't see it > > fail on your for-next branch. > > No, I tried both and it didn't work on either. I'm totally confused because I can't reproduce, but OK. > > The problem is that commit 2bb166636933 ("regulator: core: enable > > power when setting up constraints") touches the same code but isn't in > > the 4.21 branch. If you pick that to your 4.21 then my patch applies > > cleanly. > > > If you'd prefer that I post my patch atop 4.21 I can do that tomorrow. > > I'd prefer that you resend like I said :( If I can't reproduce the merge conflict that you're seeing I'm worried that I'll just be sending you the exact same patch I sent before and it'll have the same problem. That's why I've been so focused on trying to understand. In any case it sounds as if sending it up against 4.21 should be fine and maybe is preferred (since the patch it Fixes is in 4.21), so here comes v2 against for-4.21. OK, posted at -Doug