[GIT PULL] Power management fix for v4.6-rc1

[GIT PULL] Power management fix for v4.6-rc1

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

Hi Linus,

One of commits in my previous pull request changed the permissions
of drivers/power/avs/rockchip-io-domain.c to executable by mistake.

Please pull from

 git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm.git \
 pm+acpi-4.6-rc1-3

to receive the fix as commit 8e653b654497350f9cb3d6c2088207bc503f2c7c

 Fix permissions of drivers/power/avs/rockchip-io-domain.c

on top of commit f447671b9e4fa4b0c9faf39455269d62d94218ae

 PM / AVS: rockchip-io: add io selectors and supplies for rk3399

This changes the file mode of drivers/power/avs/rockchip-io-domain.c
back to 644.

Thanks!


---------------

Rafael J. Wysocki (1):
      Fix permissions of drivers/power/avs/rockchip-io-domain.c

---------------

 drivers/power/avs/rockchip-io-domain.c | 0
 1 file changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

Re: [GIT PULL] Power management fix for v4.6-rc1

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> One of commits in my previous pull request changed the permissions
> of drivers/power/avs/rockchip-io-domain.c to executable by mistake.

Hmm. The signed tag contents was garbage - it was your previous
message. The commit it pointed to was fine.

Was it intentional? I had already pulled your previous tag, so it made
very little sense from my viewpoint..

I ended up just ignoring the signed tag part.

            Linus

Re: [GIT PULL] Power management fix for v4.6-rc1

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 12:55 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> One of commits in my previous pull request changed the permissions
>> of drivers/power/avs/rockchip-io-domain.c to executable by mistake.
>
> Hmm. The signed tag contents was garbage - it was your previous
> message. The commit it pointed to was fine.

Yes, sorry about the broken tag.

> Was it intentional?

No, it wasn't.  I forgot to update the message file when creating the tag.

> I had already pulled your previous tag, so it made
> very little sense from my viewpoint..
>
> I ended up just ignoring the signed tag part.

Thanks a lot for pulling and sorry for the breakage.

Rafael