From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Robert Jarzmik Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: pxa: move header file out of deprecated i2c folder Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 21:34:00 +0100 Message-ID: <87y3ntlmmf.fsf@belgarion.home> References: <20170814164303.2383-1-wsa@the-dreams.de> <87d15qlq6z.fsf@belgarion.home> <20171029175257.dfmf5642zfszoxe3@ninjato> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from smtp10.smtpout.orange.fr ([80.12.242.132]:25101 "EHLO smtp.smtpout.orange.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751932AbdJ2UeK (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Oct 2017 16:34:10 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20171029175257.dfmf5642zfszoxe3@ninjato> (Wolfram Sang's message of "Sun, 29 Oct 2017 18:52:57 +0100") Sender: linux-i2c-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org To: Wolfram Sang Cc: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, Eric Miao , Haojian Zhuang , Russell King , Daniel Mack , Marek Vasut , Philipp Zabel , Paul Parsons , Jonathan Cameron , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Wolfram Sang writes: Hi Wolfram, > Wouldn't it be even cleaner if patch 1 & 2 above would be swapped? First > move the chunk, then rename the file? Yeah sure. > And is there a branch I should base this on? Currently, I am thinking of > basing this patch on for-next and then submit it around rc1 time. > > Does that make sense to you? Yeah that's good. I usually make my pull requests around -rc5, that gives enough time to review and test on my side. As for the base, for-next is exactly pxa/for-next as no patches are pending, so go ahead and base your work on it please. Cheers. -- Robert