Hi Wolfram, On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 04:48:31 +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 05:27:34PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > > Not sure what you mean there... What's the alternative? > > I was confused by your "so that drivers can start removing the call on their > end quickly". It sounded a bit like they should care themselves. Ah. I mean that if they care, they can do it themselves. But most probably they don't care and will leave it up to us (that is, you). > > No, 2.6.35. This touches too many drivers for 2.6.34 at this point in > > time. > > I agree. So I base the removal-patch on rc3, so it can go to linux-next. If > there are other users of i2c_set_clientdata popping up until the merge-window, > it will be handled by an incremental patch. > > > > - also patches per subsystem? > > > > Not sure if it's worth the effort. > > Not much effort, I made scripts for that :) Still, I think it should go in just > using one commit. Let's hope it won't get too intrusive (= creating conflicts). If it turns out to be an issue, I guess we could hold on and generate the path again at the end of the 2.6.35 merge window. > > > - shall this better go via the i2c-tree? > > > > This seems simpler, yes. I don't think subsystem or driver maintainers > > need to be bothered with what is really only a cleanup. > > Yes. Thanks, -- Jean Delvare -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
