On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 08:05:29 +0200 Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2022-09-15 at 15:38 +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Sep 2022 09:34:11 +0200 > > Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > This patchset fixes the read protocol since it needs a STOP > > > condition > > > between address write and data read. > > > > > > The second change is trivial and only adds an i2c functionality > > > check. > > > > Given we are late in the cycle, I've queued this up for the next > > merge > > window, with a stable tag for the first paatch so it'll get > > backported > > after the merge window. > > > > > > Alright. BTW, not sure If I already asked this but do you have any > preference with regards to CCing stable? Should I have done it when > submitting or do you prefer to handle it yourself? Generally I prefer submitters to not tag for stable and let me make that decision. Often I'll decide to not tag because I'm a little worried about a fix and want it to be in mainline a little while before we backport. I don't mind people sending explicit backport requests though once it's soaked a bit. Mind you, these days the scripts that check for possible fixes often pick these up before I've gotten to sending a backport request. Sometimes I send a note when that happens to ask for it to soak longer, but mostly the delay is enough that I'm happy the patch got enough soaking before that happens. Occasionally I just forget to tag with stable. If that happens then I'm fine with a request to pick it up being sent out once it is upstream! Jonathan > > - Nuno Sá > >
