Hello, On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 10:14:09PM +0800, Jianhua Lu wrote: > On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 02:32:39PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 08:36:28AM +0800, Jianhua Lu wrote: > > > I prefer that you pack this commit to the i2c-tree commit that drops > > > old .probe(). > > > > That's fine for me. Can I interpret this as an Ack for this patch? > > Yes, but can't get my A-b directly, this patch should be ignored and > resend it within the i2c-tree patch series or split it to two patch > series. I'm not sure if I understand you correctly. Up to know I though you want the patch as is go in together with the patch that modifies struct i2c_driver such that the PR has in two separate commits: i2c: Modify .probe() to not take an id parameter backlight: ktz8866: Convert to i2c's .probe_new() Did I understand that right? In that case an Ack by you would be fine and welcome. I don't want to squash the changes to the ktz8866 driver into the patch that modifies struct i2c_driver, as this needlessly clutters the commit, if it's that what you wanted. (There are more than 1000 i2c drivers and the others are not converted in a single lockstep, too.) Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
