[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110511090044.0b723654@endymion.delvare>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 09:00:44 +0200
From: Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
To: Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@...csson.com>
Cc: Nat Gurumoorthy <natg@...gle.com>,
Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>,
"lm-sensors@...sensors.org" <lm-sensors@...sensors.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"mikew@...gle.com" <mikew@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 2/2] Use "request_muxed_region" in it87 hwmon
drivers
On Tue, 10 May 2011 19:53:38 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 02:45:31PM -0400, Nat Gurumoorthy wrote:
> > 02 - Chages to hwmon it87 driver to use "request_muxed_region"
> > Serialize access to the hardware by using "request_muxed_region" macro defined
> > by Alan Cox. Call to this macro will hold off the requestor if the resource is
> > currently busy. "superio_enter" will return an error if call to
> > "request_muxed_region" fails. Rest of the code change is to ripple an error
> > return from superio_enter to the top level.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Nat Gurumoorthy <natg@...gle.com>
>
> Acked-by: Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@...csson.com>
What's the merge plan for this patch set? I am under the impression
that, given the current implementation, both patches can be committed
separately, so each would go upstream through its own tree?
If this is the case, then I guess Guenter expects me to pick the it87
part in my hwmon tree? If you prefer to take it in yours, I don't mind,
I don't have any pending change to the it87 driver.
--
Jean Delvare
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists