From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Brownell <david-b-yBeKhBN/0LDR7s880joybQ@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] I2C: ISP1301_OMAP: New-style i2c driver
	updates, part 2
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 11:53:03 -0800
Message-ID: <200802231153.04011.david-b@pacbell.net>
References: <1199379597-6273-1-git-send-email-me@felipebalbi.com>
	<200802231010.40108.david-b@pacbell.net>
	<20080223202832.4a953910@hyperion.delvare>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <i2c-bounces-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <20080223202832.4a953910-ig7AzVSIIG7kN2dkZ6Wm7A@public.gmane.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c>,
	<mailto:i2c-request-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/i2c>
List-Post: <mailto:i2c-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org>
List-Help: <mailto:i2c-request-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c>,
	<mailto:i2c-request-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: i2c-bounces-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org
Errors-To: i2c-bounces-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org
To: Jean Delvare <khali-PUYAD+kWke1g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>
Cc: tony-4v6yS6AI5VpBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org, dsaxena-k7pgMgclrJvR7s880joybQ@public.gmane.org, i2c-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org
List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org

On Saturday 23 February 2008, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:10:39 -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> > On Saturday 23 February 2008, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > Thanks Dave, the patch is attached. patch 1 is acked by Jean, right Jean?
> 
> Yes, except that my copy has "isp->irq_type = 0;" removed.

>>From a bzeroed structure?  Then I won't worry about that difference...


> > But not yet in the I2C merge queue??
> 
> I was waiting for the second part. The first part doesn't make much
> sense alone. I could add the first part to my i2c tree, but I can't
> merge it upstream without the second part.

That makes no sense to me.  If the first part is OK, it's OK to
merge without the second part.

Even if you don't _plan_ to merge it soon, it'd be less confusing
to have that in your queue ... say, towards the end, below a line
that indicates a scheduled merge point.  (FWIW that's not unlike
Andrew does with MM.)

- Dave

_______________________________________________
i2c mailing list
i2c-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c