mchehab: if you have a little bit of time, can you merge syoung's PR: https://patchwork.linuxtv.org/patch/63300/ The daily build keeps reporting ERROR because of the missing si2157 fix from that PR. ok applied. Btw, I'm getting this: $ git show --pretty=email 9a42a5ff3daccc37ae4dbcfb6ce5c5d95419740b | ./scripts/checkpatch.pl - WARNING: Missing Signed-off-by: line by nominal patch author '' on patches from Niklas it sounds to be some problem at checkpatch script and UTF-8 Jenkins also saw the same issue The problem is that git splits from on two lines: From: =?UTF-8?q?Niklas=20S=C3=B6derlund?= <niklas.soderlund+renesas@ragnatech.se> mchehab: I noticed, but it is fine in the git log. it seems to be checkpatch.pl that can't handle it. perhaps I could use formail to change the max line size $ git show --pretty=email 9a42a5ff3daccc37ae4dbcfb6ce5c5d95419740b |formail -c|./scripts/checkpatch.pl this works changed both jenkins and my local script to use formail -c let's see what happens for a next jenkins build with patches from Niklas everybody should be named with a 64-bit number, and we wouldn't have name length or encoding issues ;-) :-D mchehab: I've noticed you have merged some patches today. I'm not trying to push, but do you know when you will have a chance to look at "[GIT PULL FOR v5.8] Add V4L2_CAP_IO_MC, extend VIDIOC_ENUM_FMT" ? I'd like to merge support for the i.MX7 in libcamera, and it depends on that series pinchartl: sure yeah, I intend to merge the remaining PRs maybe tomorrow thanks looking forward to that :-) pinchartl: I ended reviewing this series... it was the next one here... I'm actually in the middle of it, but I have something to comment about this one: Subject: media: v4l2: Extend VIDIOC_ENUM_FMT to support MC-centric devices IMHO, there's something not right there at the Documentation/ part of it (completely unrelated with the patch's goal, but reverting something that can cause uAPI regressions) see my e-mail (perhaps this was already discussed upstream, but I can see only up to v6 - as I lost all my e-mails from Oct, 2019 to March) in any case, if the change was intentional, it deserves a separate patch mchehab: let me check mchehab: I've replied to your e-mail I think it's a misunderstanding, I didn't intend to remove the information, it's only written differently now. I've proposed a clarification (which I think is overkill, but if you like it better, I'm fine with it) just answering your e-mail. Yeah, everything is there, but it took me re-reading it several times to understand that. Talking about a MC-specific field (mbus_code) made my brain to consider the entire text as something specific for MC-centric, and not the reverse it sounded as if you're describing a mineral as "not animal, not vegetal" :-) just call it "mineral" :-) :-) I tried to split it with non-MC in the first paragraph and MC in the second one as the behaviour differs between the two yeah, understood.. please take a look on my e-mail that reminds that I should try to do another effort to push that dictionary patchset I'm on the phone, I'll look at it right after sure