On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 02:11:23PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > Hi, > > > > Which means your original patch starts to make a lot more sense. I > > > wonder is this is really what we should be doing though - breaking out > > > of the loop, I mean. > > Yup, that is fine. I applied the old patch with Acks from Hein and > Felipe to -next. Thanks! > > > It looks like TI's i2c-davinci will have the same problem as i2c-omap, > > and will need the same change. > > Somebody up for this? I would suggest deleting i2c-davinci and making sure it can use i2c-omap. It's the same IP anyway. Just an older version which was used back in OMAP1 times. -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
