Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] i2c: Match parameters of i2c_start_transfer and i2c_send_recv

[Corey Minyard <minyard@acm.org>]

On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 06:48:05PM +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On 6/14/21 12:02 PM, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Jun 2021, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> >> On 6/12/21 9:33 PM, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2020, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> >>>> This is v2 of Zoltan's patch:
> >>>> https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg714711.html
> >>>>
> >>>> - rebased
> >>>> - added docstring
> >>>> - include hw/misc/auxbus.c fix
> >>>>
> >>>> Supersedes: <20200621145235.9E241745712@zero.eik.bme.hu>
> >>>
> >>> What happened to this series? I did not find it in patchew, only my
> >>> original patch:
> >>>
> >>> https://patchew.org/QEMU/20200621145235.9E241745712@zero.eik.bme.hu/
> >>>
> >>> I still have this in one of my branches so I think it was not merged at
> >>> the end. Could this be resurrected or should I forget about it and live
> >>> with the inconsistency in parameters instead?
> >>
> >> I suppose it was not queued because you asked to remove the
> >> "Reported-by" tag :/ I agree with you it would be nice to get this in
> >> the tree
> > 
> > I think I said only Reported-by is enough no need for Suggested-by as
> > well but I don't see this as a reason to drop these patches. So maybe
> > just nobody cared enough.
> 
> Ah OK now got it.
> 
> >> for good. However 1 year passed, so it might need adjustment.
> > 
> > Should I try to rebase it or will you do it eventually?
> 
> Found the branch and clean rebase, so no change needed.
> 
> Corey, if you are busy, I could send a pull request if you provide
> and Acked-by tag.

I'm somewhat worried about the silent semantic change.  I would much
prefer the functions to be renamed, as you mentioned in an email a while
ago.  I think that you mentioned this in an email in the chain listed
above, and I think I pulled it for that reason.

-corey

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Phil.
>