On 04/06/2015 07:09 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
Of course, i2c_davinci_wait_bus_not_busy() has to be fixed first
as proposed by Alexander Sverdlin here:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/448994/.
Okay, good that you said it. So I'll give his patch series priority over
this one.
Sorry, but this series already mises few merge windows and it has a lot
of revied-by and tested-by, so could we proceed please?
Re-based & re-sent http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg410810.html
??? Didn't you say above that Alexaders's patch is needed first?
Sorry for misunderstanding.
I said that if We'd like to continue and optimize more recovery path
then yes - Alexaders's patch will be needed (patch 2 from his series
[PATCH 2/3] i2c: davinci: Refactor i2c_davinci_wait_bus_not_busy(),
which, in turn need to be rebased as the first one in his series and
re-send). And in my opinion all such improvements could be done by
subsequent patches.
--
regards,
-grygorii
--
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
