From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757920AbbLBJf6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Dec 2015 04:35:58 -0500 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([134.134.136.65]:21941 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757764AbbLBJfx (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Dec 2015 04:35:53 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,372,1444719600"; d="scan'208";a="852136405" Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 11:33:41 +0200 From: Mika Westerberg To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Wolfram Sang , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Jarkko Nikula , linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Lee Jones , Kevin Fenzi , Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 16/16] i2c: designware: Convert to use unified device property API Message-ID: <20151202093341.GM1593@lahna.fi.intel.com> References: <1448896304-87928-1-git-send-email-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <20151130195858.GB16446@katana> <1448966031.15393.131.camel@linux.intel.com> <3465575.VLD33ozkzD@vostro.rjw.lan> <1449048220.15393.141.camel@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1449048220.15393.141.camel@linux.intel.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 11:23:40AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Wed, 2015-12-02 at 02:28 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Tuesday, December 01, 2015 12:33:51 PM Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 20:58 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 05:11:44PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > > > What is the bug fix here described in the cover letter? > > > > > > The cover letter mentioned 'last part' which I refer to as patches > > > 14, > > > 15 (though this is for UART), and 16. > > > > Hmm. > > > > So may I assume that patches [1-13/16] are for me and the rest is to > > be applied > > by the other respective maintainers? > > > > That should be easiest logistically IMHO. > > Have no objections. Unfortunately the patches (except this one) depend on each other so they cannot be applied separately.