On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 13:55:59 +0200 Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Jonathan > > > Ok, so that is there because my assumption was that mostly like I'd take > > this patch through IIO, in which case it's directly valid and necessary > > for backport information purposes. I'm guessing this one is unlikely to > > cause merge conflicts given how localized it is... > > I see. Makes sense. > > > You would do an immutable branch that I can pull into IIO. I'd really like > > to avoid rebasing the IIO tree unless absolutely necessary as people are > > working on top if it. > > Sure, let's avoid rebasing. > > > Doesn't work. There is a high chance the original patch will get ported > > back to earlier kernels and there is no reference to let anyone know they > > also need this one to avoid potential build issues on the stable kernel. > > > > So, if you want to take this through I2C, the path forwards would be. > > 1) You take this one through I2C > > 2) I apply the original fix (which #ifdefs the relevant code out in the > > driver). > > 3) Once (1) is in mainline next cycle, I can revert (2) on the basis > > it is no longer necessary. > > > > I'm fine with doing it this way as it avoids any cross dependencies. > > The other solution is that you make an immutable branch for me? IIUC, > this would be easiest? It would work for me. Sure, I'll do that once we've agreed a v2 > > > > > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_I2C) > > > > > > Hmm, can't we move this into an already existing IS_ENABLED block? > > > > There aren't any similar #if / #else blocks for CONFIG_I2C in i2c.h > > so it seemed neater to just add one around this individual element > > and not destroy the general organization of the file. > > Could be argued. I'd still prefer to add it at line 480 (5.13-rc3) with > the #else branch added if you don't mind. Sure, I'll move it. Jonathan > > Thanks and kind regards, > > Wolfram > >
