Hi Jean, > > What is the rationale for not adding support for the new chip to > i2c-sis630 then? That would probably be a lot easier to review. > I was afraid that adding SIS964 support to i2c-sis630 would lead to confusion. I can try to submit a patch for i2c-sis630. In this case, do you think we should keep the 630 name or change it to something else to avoid misunderstanding ? > > This split makes little sense. Integration should come with the driver, > otherwise even build-testing is impossible. > Sorry for that. As the patch V1 was rather big, I was hesitating for the same reason but posted it split. I'll "unsplit" for the V3 (unless i2c-sis630 patch). Amaury Decrême -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
