Hi Boris, > Here are three patches preparing things for I3C (those changes were > previously part of the I3C patchset) Thanks for this break out. I like it. > As you suggested I have split my original patch a bit and rebased the > series on i2c/for-next. You might want to wait for an official > green-light on the I3C proposal before applying patch 3 (I export a > function whose only user is the I3C framework), but patch 1 and 2 can > be applied now if you're okay with their content. Is for-4.18 good enough for a smooth I3C acceptance? Thanks, Wolfram
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
