From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Shubhrajyoti <shubhrajyoti@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv10 00/11] I2C fixes
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 23:09:34 +0530
Message-ID: <4FD62D56.2020500@ti.com>
References: <1338288983-15026-1-git-send-email-shubhrajyoti@ti.com> <87obp4x8gs.fsf@ti.com> <CAM=Q2ctZmOFdroUw5qywwGU_4ResB9RKqag4-+qh3nHeKHWzKQ@mail.gmail.com> <20120611160034.GA3887@pengutronix.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20120611160034.GA3887@pengutronix.de>
Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@pengutronix.de>
Cc: Shubhrajyoti Datta <omaplinuxkernel@gmail.com>, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, ben-linux@fluff.org, tony@atomide.com, Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com>
List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org

On Monday 11 June 2012 09:30 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>> Agree,
>> > These are only fixes can it be considered for rc3?
> "Baking in linux-next" and "considering rc3" don't match; baking needs
> time, rc3 is soon. I've put the patches now into my -next branch for
> more exposure.
Thanks.
>  I am still uncertain if they should be in 3.5 already;
> there seem to be worhty fixes in there, but they do depend on stuff
> which don't really qualify as bugfixes...