[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] i2c: Match parameters of i2c_start_transfer and i2c_s

From: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] i2c: Match parameters of i2c_start_transfer and i2c_send_recv
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 17:09:14 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.1

On 6/14/21 9:34 PM, Corey Minyard wrote:
> 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.

OK, maybe the comment was sent after this series or I missed it.

Thanks for the reminder.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]