Re: [PATCH v2] Revert "i2c: rcar: remove spinlock"

[Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1313 bytes --]


> >I don't see why. If we have two patches, the state inbetween them is
> >broken.
> 
>    Even so, it has always been broken, we don't make it more broken by
> reverting your change.

Yes. Still, if I send something to *stable*, less broken is not an
option for me, if I know there is a fix possible. And we are at -rc3
now, so there is still time for that.

> >And we don't have two patches yet, just the revert. So, the
> 
>    I'm going to consider the spinlock issue ASAP, after I check whether the
> I2C clock frequency really has any influence on the unexpected read NACK
> issue I've been chasing for several days.

Good luck with that! Such bugs are truly annoying :(

>    Your patch removing the spinlock went into 3.16 only but we'd have to
> backport the assumed single patch to the -stable kernels older than that.
> This means that I'd have to provide the "delta" patch (i.e. the separate
> patch that I'd like to provide now atop of the revert) for these kernels
> instead since the original single patch wouldn't apply anyway.

With all my changes in 3.16, I wonder if the patch with your addition to
the revert will apply anyhow. But, okay, you send two patches, and I
will decide how I apply them and deal with delta-patches. Okay?

All the best,

   Wolfram


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]