On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 10:03:59AM +0200, Nicolas Ferre wrote: > On 09/12/2012 08:42 AM, ludovic.desroches@xxxxxxxxx : > > From: Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Hi, > > > > This set of patches is based on Nikolaus at91_i2c driver. > > > > Changes: > > v3: > > - only put multi-drive lines in the if...else statement (suggested > > by Warner Losh) > > Hi Wolfram, > > As said by Ludovic, this series goes on top of Nikolaus' one. > My Acked-by is already set on this one, so I think that I have nothing > more to do ;-) > > BTW, in case you need help to sort all this, do not hesitate to contact > us... we can setup a git tree for this... I think I am fine. Patches look good. I wondered a bit about first removing the old driver, then adding the new one with regard to bisectability. But as the old driver depends on BROKEN, I think this is OK to do. One thing I'd like to make, though. I'd like to squash the following patches into one: drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c: add new driver i2c: at91: use managed resources i2c: at91: add warning about transmission issues for some devices i2c: at91: use an id table for SoC dependent parameters It is especially the last patch I am mostly interested in. The id_table approach is what I like, while the original id_entry mechanism looks fishy. I'd was good for reviewing to have the patches split like this; yet for hitting mainline, I'd prefer to have the driver proper on first occasion. I already did the squashing in a test-branch and the result looks good to me. Nikolaus, Ludovic: Are you fine with this? Thanks, Wolfram -- Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
