On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 04:43:24PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > Hi Greg, > > I think we've reached a point where we can eventually consider the I3C > framework for inclusion in 4.20 (5.0?). A few more issues were reported > on v9 and fixed in v10. I can't guarantee that the implementation is > free of bugs but I still think it's worth merging it in v4.20: it's a > new subsystem, so we don't risk regressions, and the only way we can > detect other issues is by having other people experiment with this > implementation. > > The only remaining concern raised by Arnd is the fact that both hosts > and slaves share the same bus type and are differentiated thanks to > their device_type, which IMHO is fine since this is what other > subsystems do (plus I don't see other solutions to have both I3C > devices and I3C buses represented under /sys/bus/i3c/). Yeah, it's not the nicest, but it will work, we did it also for USB and greybus and it solves the issue. This all looks good to me, so I've queued it up. Let's see if linux-next has any problems with it. Thanks for sticking with it, nice work! greg k-h
