Re: [PATCH 0/2] ad5593r fix read protocol

[Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>]

On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 08:05:29 +0200
Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 2022-09-15 at 15:38 +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Sep 2022 09:34:11 +0200
> > Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@analog.com> wrote:
> >   
> > > This patchset fixes the read protocol since it needs a STOP
> > > condition
> > > between address write and data read.
> > > 
> > > The second change is trivial and only adds an i2c functionality
> > > check.  
> > 
> > Given we are late in the cycle, I've queued this up for the next
> > merge
> > window, with a stable tag for the first paatch so it'll get
> > backported
> > after the merge window.
> > 
> >   
> 
> Alright. BTW, not sure If I already asked this but do you have any
> preference with regards to CCing stable? Should I have done it when
> submitting or do you prefer to handle it yourself?

Generally I prefer submitters to not tag for stable and let me make that
decision.  Often I'll decide to not tag because I'm a little worried
about a fix and want it to be in mainline a little while before we
backport.  I don't mind people sending explicit backport requests
though once it's soaked a bit.

Mind you, these days the scripts that check for possible fixes
often pick these up before I've gotten to sending a backport
request. Sometimes I send a note when that happens to ask for
it to soak longer, but mostly the delay is enough that I'm happy
the patch got enough soaking before that happens.

Occasionally I just forget to tag with stable. If that happens
then I'm fine with a request to pick it up being sent out once
it is upstream!

Jonathan

> 
> - Nuno Sá
> 
>