[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] mfd: intel_soc_pmic_core: Terminate panel control GPIO lookup table correctly

[Daniel Vetter]

On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 08:32:17AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 02 May 2016, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:31:44AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 9:38 PM,  <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> > > >
> > > > GPIO lookup tables are supposed to be zero terminated. Let's do that
> > > > and avoid accidentally walking off the end.
> > > >
> > > > Cc: Shobhit Kumar <shobhit.kumar at intel.com>
> > > > Cc: Samuel Ortiz <sameo at linux.intel.com>
> > > > Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij at linaro.org>
> > > > Cc: Alexandre Courbot <gnurou at gmail.com>
> > > > Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding at gmail.com>
> > > > Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jones at linaro.org>
> > > > Cc: stable at vger.kernel.org
> > > > Fixes: 61dd2ca2d44e ("mfd: intel_soc_pmic_core: Add lookup table for Panel Control as GPIO signal")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> > > 
> > > Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij at linaro.org>
> > 
> > Applied to drm-intel trees, thanks for patch, reviews&acks.
> 
> Do what now?  How can you apply a patch for a subsystem you don't have
> responsibility for?  This is bound to cause merge conflicts.

Oh crap, I thought Linus' ack was for the mfd stuff and didn't bother
double-checking with MAINTAINTERS. Should I throw it out again and you'll
pick it up, or ok as such?

Thanks, Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch