From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wolfram Sang Subject: Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: add i2c tree for embedded platforms Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:37:59 +0100 Message-ID: <20100126153759.GF4431@pengutronix.de> References: <1264411234-5400-1-git-send-email-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> <20100125111055.05ccedf2@hyperion.delvare> <20100126143830.GC12774@fluff.org.uk> <20100126162515.230bdf36@hyperion.delvare> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="HCdXmnRlPgeNBad2" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100126162515.230bdf36@hyperion.delvare> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jean Delvare Cc: Ben Dooks , Uwe Kleine-Koenig , linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org --HCdXmnRlPgeNBad2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > So I see no objection to a mass move of all embedded/system i2c bus > drivers to a separate sub-directory. And with the PCA9xxx-controllers? The ISA-driver into non-embedded and the platform-driver into embedded? Hmmm... And (in 80 years ;)) there might be just one I2C-maintainer taking care of = them all? Then, why the split? I am all for taking the embedded-burden away from you, just I am not too fo= nd of this idea. Regards, Wolfram --=20 Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | --HCdXmnRlPgeNBad2 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAktfDFcACgkQD27XaX1/VRvBdACdGcOB7kKbnYutaSkD/VYAGuDg lOUAnjCn6z2Zpug5h1anrHaQu1/eOLhE =wUUR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --HCdXmnRlPgeNBad2--