From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergei Shtylyov Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Revert "i2c: rcar: remove spinlock" Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 21:13:55 +0400 Message-ID: <5405FAD3.90403@cogentembedded.com> References: <1642788.pEhrsPDp4u@wasted.cogentembedded.com> <20140824064520.GA2578@katana> <53F9CCE7.3010006@cogentembedded.com> <20140825034009.GA2795@katana> <53FB1F90.6080704@cogentembedded.com> <20140825143316.GA1285@katana> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20140825143316.GA1285@katana> Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Wolfram Sang Cc: linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-sh-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org Hello. On 08/25/2014 06:33 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote: >> Ah, I misunderstood you. However, I don't quite understand why you want >> to combine revert and the mentioned updates... > As I understood from your previous mail, a plain revert is less broken > but still broken. Applying a correct fix is my preferred way. Actually, from the -stable kernel perspective, a single patch would complicate backporting. So could you please reconsider? WBR, Sergei