* Re: [GIT PULL] rust-i2c-fixes for 7.1-rc7 [not found] ` <aiZ0eD-A2F8woqTb@shikoro> @ 2026-06-09 9:26 ` Wolfram Sang 2026-06-09 12:08 ` Igor Korotin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread From: Wolfram Sang @ 2026-06-09 9:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Igor Korotin, rust-for-linux Cc: Wolfram Sang, linux-i2c, linux-kernel, Danilo Krummrich [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 769 bytes --] Hi all, (adding a few more people to CC to have a potentially bigger discussion) > Please be already aware that from 7.2 on, you will need send pull > requests to Andi who takes over the I2C subsystem. I will write a > seperate mail about the handover later today. Done now [1]. On a second thought, after pulling in the I2C abstractions a few times now, I wonder meanwhile if the Rust-tree wouldn't be the better path to upstream. The abstractions are way more Rust than they are I2C. And potential merge-conflicts come from generic Rust abstraction updates, not from I2C. This is Andi's choice now, of course. Just wanted to give my 2 cents here... Happy hacking, Wolfram [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260609091612.8228-3-wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [GIT PULL] rust-i2c-fixes for 7.1-rc7 2026-06-09 9:26 ` [GIT PULL] rust-i2c-fixes for 7.1-rc7 Wolfram Sang @ 2026-06-09 12:08 ` Igor Korotin 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread From: Igor Korotin @ 2026-06-09 12:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Wolfram Sang, rust-for-linux Cc: Wolfram Sang, linux-i2c, linux-kernel, Danilo Krummrich Hello Wolfram On June 9, 2026 10:26:40 AM GMT+01:00, Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> wrote: >Hi all, > >(adding a few more people to CC to have a potentially bigger discussion) > >> Please be already aware that from 7.2 on, you will need send pull >> requests to Andi who takes over the I2C subsystem. I will write a >> seperate mail about the handover later today. > >Done now [1]. On a second thought, after pulling in the I2C abstractions >a few times now, I wonder meanwhile if the Rust-tree wouldn't be the >better path to upstream. The abstractions are way more Rust than they >are I2C. And potential merge-conflicts come from generic Rust >abstraction updates, not from I2C. > >This is Andi's choice now, of course. Just wanted to give my 2 cents >here... Thanks for the heads-up on the handover — noted, I'll direct pull requests to Andi from 7.2 onward. On the Rust-tree question: I don't have a strong preference either way from a workflow perspective, but technically your reasoning makes sense to me. As long as the changes don't introduce or alter any I2C-specific behavior — and so far they don't — routing them through the Rust tree seems like the more natural fit, and would avoid spurious merge conflicts driven by generic abstraction updates rather than anything I2C-related. Ultimately Andi's call, of course. Happy to adapt to whatever process works best. Cheers Igor ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2026-06-09 12:08 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <9e49b71b-8b60-479e-93e7-5c12e352c78e@linux.dev>
[not found] ` <aiZ0eD-A2F8woqTb@shikoro>
2026-06-09 9:26 ` [GIT PULL] rust-i2c-fixes for 7.1-rc7 Wolfram Sang
2026-06-09 12:08 ` Igor Korotin
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox