On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 00:08:45 +0100, Ben Dooks wrote: > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 12:08:48PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > > Hi Wolfram, > > > > On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 11:31:23 +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 11:20:48AM +0200, Yegor Yefremov wrote: > > > > ret is still -1, if during the polling read_byte() returns at once > > > > with I2C_PCA_CON_SI set. So ret > 0 would lead *_waitforcompletion() > > > > to return 0, in spite of the proper behavior. > > > > > > > > The routine was rewritten, so that ret has always a proper value, > > > > before returning. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Yegor Yefremov <yegorslists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Reviewed-by: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Great! Jean, I think this is .36-relevant. Do you plan another > > > pull-request (hmm, there is still my clientdata-patch ;))? Should > > > probably go to stable, too. > > > > Yes, I have a few i2c patches scheduled for 2.6.36 and plan to send > > Linus a pull request soon. I'm a little busy this week at work, and also > > due to a complete workstastion update so I must setup a number of > > things again and this temporarily hinders my efficiency. > > Want me to push it, i've a few fixes too. No, thanks. It's already in my tree and ready to go to Linus. I know I'm lagging behind a bit these days but this should get better by the end of the week. -- 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
