This file isn't using any interfaces from <linux/gpio.h> so just drop the include.
Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij linus.walleij@linaro.org --- drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/megachips-stdpxxxx-ge-b850v3-fw.c | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/megachips-stdpxxxx-ge-b850v3-fw.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/megachips-stdpxxxx-ge-b850v3-fw.c index 823db80cbd19..b40ce484244a 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/megachips-stdpxxxx-ge-b850v3-fw.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/megachips-stdpxxxx-ge-b850v3-fw.c @@ -19,7 +19,6 @@ * Host -> LVDS|--(STDP4028)--|DP -> DP|--(STDP2690)--|DP++ -> Video output */
-#include <linux/gpio.h> #include <linux/i2c.h> #include <linux/module.h> #include <linux/of.h>
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 1:28 PM Linus Walleij linus.walleij@linaro.org wrote:
So what do I do with these simple patches as noone seems to ACK or review them for a month?
I guess as last resort simply apply them to the GPIO tree, but hey.
Yours, Linus Walleij
Hi Linus,
On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 11:05:55AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
They have a tendency to slip through the cracks :-S One ping is sometimes all it takes though:
Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com
But if a ping doesn't help I think you can just apply them (although probably to the drm-misc tree in this case, to minimise the risk of conflicts, event if they're quite unlikely).
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 11:31 AM Laurent Pinchart laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com wrote:
Thanks Laurent! :)
It goes for all of them I assume.
Yours, Linus Walleij
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 11:06 AM Linus Walleij linus.walleij@linaro.org wrote:
Ping people explicitly for review/acks, either here or on irc. Keep a record of who owes you, to make your ping convincing :-)
I guess as last resort simply apply them to the GPIO tree, but hey.
The trouble is that with mailing lists it's essentially impossible to track patches in need of review. Except if everyone would keep their own stuff up to date, which almost noone does (plus you'd need to do it on all the disjoint patchwork instances if you cc multiple list). So defacto stuff just gets lost after about a week or so, and you need to kick it again. "Maintainer updates patchwork all the time" doesn't scale and leads to burnout. It sucks, but it is what it is. Waiting a full month is definitely too much waiting, especially for a simple patch like this one. -Daniel
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
-
Daniel Vetter -
Laurent Pinchart -
Linus Walleij -
Neil Armstrong