From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yx0-f195.google.com (mail-yx0-f195.google.com [209.85.210.195]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 061BCB7D64 for ; Fri, 7 May 2010 04:06:37 +1000 (EST) Received: by yxe33 with SMTP id 33so155778yxe.15 for ; Thu, 06 May 2010 11:06:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: glikely@secretlab.ca In-Reply-To: <1273168472.1767.1@antares> References: <20100505220916.GD3529@ovro.caltech.edu> <1273168472.1767.1@antares> From: Grant Likely Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 20:06:14 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Patch v2 1/2] 5200/mpc: improve i2c bus error recovery To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Albrecht_Dre=DF?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Linux PPC Development , Devicetree Discussions , "Ben Dooks \(embedded platforms\)" , "Ira W. Snyder" List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Albrecht Dre=DF w= rote: > 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 > processors, I think he might be the responsible person. =A0The patch is s= till > in a "new" state in patchwork, btw. > >> I've pulled these into my 2.6.31.13 kernel, and they seem to work fine. >> You'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,= so > I do not understand why it's still pending as "new". =A0Grant, did we mis= s > something here? I generally let subsystem maintainers pick up the device driver patches for embedded platforms I'm responsible for unless I'm asked to do otherwise. I think ben has asked me to take these through my tree. g.