Re: [GIT PULL] rust-i2c-fixes for 7.1-rc7

Re: [GIT PULL] rust-i2c-fixes for 7.1-rc7

[Wolfram Sang]

[-- 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 --]

Re: [GIT PULL] rust-i2c-fixes for 7.1-rc7

[Igor Korotin]

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