From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp5.netcologne.de (smtp5.netcologne.de [194.8.194.25]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96EF6B7D5B for ; Fri, 7 May 2010 03:54:35 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 19:54:31 +0200 From: Albrecht =?iso-8859-1?b?RHJl3w==?= Subject: Re: [Patch v2 1/2] 5200/mpc: improve i2c bus error recovery To: "Ira W. Snyder" , Grant Likely In-Reply-To: <20100505220916.GD3529@ovro.caltech.edu> (from iws@ovro.caltech.edu on Thu May 6 00:09:16 2010) Message-Id: <1273168472.1767.1@antares> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="=-GESm4MLGNwyJwiypmWfs" Cc: Linux PPC Development , Devicetree Discussions , "Ben Dooks \(embedded platforms\)" List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --=-GESm4MLGNwyJwiypmWfs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; DelSp=Yes; Format=Flowed Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Am 06.05.10 00:09 schrieb(en) Ira W. Snyder: > Did this series get forgotten about? I don't see it in bjdook's next-i2c = branch or in benh's next branch. It's not in Grant's 5xxx tree either - as it's specific for those processor= s, I think he might be the responsible person. The patch is still in a "ne= w" state in patchwork, btw. > I've pulled these into my 2.6.31.13 kernel, and they seem to work fine. Y= ou've got my Tested-by if you didn't get one from me already. Tanks a lot! I think, though, the whole stuff has been discussed in depth in February, s= o I do not understand why it's still pending as "new". Grant, did we miss = something here? Thanks, Albrecht. --=-GESm4MLGNwyJwiypmWfs Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBL4wJXn/9unNAn/9ERAnIKAKCtGrks2uRqLy0dIrGrUdSvLi/MvQCgy3zK QTMSuK41i8DzgaFSXhZrZUY= =khvH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-GESm4MLGNwyJwiypmWfs--