From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 719291A0567 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 19:54:45 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from pokefinder.org (sauhun.de [89.238.76.85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1E231400D5 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 19:54:44 +1100 (AEDT) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 09:54:35 +0100 From: Wolfram Sang To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] i2c: Driver to expose PowerNV platform i2c busses Message-ID: <20141209085435.GA1154@katana> References: <20141208063039.14356.34770.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <1418069595.4827.43.camel@kernel.crashing.org> <20141208205520.GA12715@katana> <1418075026.13358.4.camel@kernel.crashing.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="h31gzZEtNLTqOjlF" In-Reply-To: <1418075026.13358.4.camel@kernel.crashing.org> Cc: Neelesh Gupta , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --h31gzZEtNLTqOjlF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > Oh, I thought we agreed that you take it via powerpc. I still think this > > is the best solution. >=20 > I threatened to do that :-) I don't remember you replying, did I miss > it ? It is here: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.i2c/20762/focus=3D21099 > If you are ok with the driver and are happy for me to take it, > please send an Ack. "Happy" is not the correct word, but let's just go over with it. Maybe like this: Acked-by: Wolfram Sang (I2C part, excluding the binding= s) > From a binding perspective, it's just a piece of additional info that > the firmware provides for convenience. I do understand the use case. I even agree it makes sense to have something like this. It is just that I'd prefer a generic, widely acknowledged solution, with consensus where it belongs and how it should be named. Not a custom solution which, frankly, feels forced on me by time pressure I have nothing to do with. So, not happy here, but also not looking for drama. Let's move on... --h31gzZEtNLTqOjlF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUhrjLAAoJEBQN5MwUoCm2SxQP/14KP9HmX7/VElUaCTmG4+BP m0muuYKuqOB1lPmw1sB3IgdHcpm9rQbRCRnXTPGSKEAlNZrTzS615jvedtUhVQP4 dCkd5aD0+C66eRK+S7fgAzHSuWL87DfGYRaOp5iipiiPUBDhwGM+jWnnRA0N927Y UlV6jUhjqq+r8m5j7nvRg7ZZNi/IGOUNtEF0GK3wGzZmzI3iG50m0FkSFxAppaLY 0AHG69cuNVUMJI5nXH2NW+hXVghKiEA/AIxvIU8aQBt/siRywCSxcqSmOZ+gnaWT mPlct61FEQ+d8IyjrqfkkyM24uC57YG0g1cE4l/kkxkmOwEGqP2t2cPUs2eFndIZ v7qrBp3Y4ODctBeZBVAsqIrV1eIuxPiOzzZKG1Qvw9DCSP+e2pYp/KPLNz4Itaws NwbZL/Lu7LagolCuysz94RmChhcJt395IUAOny2zeL9k8gVFbQ3qy/F/lV+tRmUp thtXRd5LVa3hp9OxzAEIW9T5EC72pBngKu4GpN6LQ26tiCUzjHXXoVtoThHe1J9S 6Wr75+X2rxRSolHC9MlyT+3S+z2grBWhAYdaFftfG1+6IAyo9Cb/Rj1xHpHbgZu/ SmlB7qncNDJsxl22V6kHsN/wDN536f7wPhllMZ9KRLUQi195pJ6fbtw4enlTl1Pq CMdpAtwaX/MnXcQ4ddz5 =Cs8K -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --h31gzZEtNLTqOjlF--