From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lee Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] enable I2C devices behind I2C bus on Gen2 Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 19:08:39 +0000 Message-ID: <20151030190839.GO4058@x1> References: <1444213129-29793-1-git-send-email-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <1445439954.22669.38.camel@linux.intel.com> <20151030185450.GM4058@x1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-i2c-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: Andy Shevchenko , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, Wolfram Sang , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Mika Westerberg , "Puustinen, Ismo" , "Pandruvada, Srinivas" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 30 Oct 2015, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 8:54 PM, Lee Jones wro= te: > > On Wed, 21 Oct 2015, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 2015-10-07 at 13:18 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > >> > There is a board in the wild, i.e. Intel Galileo Gen2, that has = ACPI > >> > enumerated > >> > devices behind I2C bus. > >> > >> Lee, since Wolfram is going to apply patches 1 and 5, how could we > >> proceed with the rest? Patches are indeed build independent, thoug= h > >> they are unified by enabling logically piece-by-piece. It would be > >> great if you think you may apply them to your v4.4 queue. > > > > So we're just waiting for Thierry's Ack now, right? >=20 > That's right. Either Ack, or he might apply patch by himself. It > wouldn't be harmful in any case. I'll give him another few days. If we don't hear anything then I'll apply them all bar the PWM patch. --=20 Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org =E2=94=82 Open source software for ARM SoCs =46ollow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog