[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53FC5C79.8050102@mind.be>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:07:53 +0200
From: Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@...d.be>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
CC: Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>,
David Brown <davidb@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tps65910: Work around silicon erratum SWCZ010
On 08/26/14 11:46, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:25:21AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Aug 2014, Mark Brown wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 05:30:56PM +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) wrote:
>>>> From http://www.ti.com/lit/pdf/SWCZ010 :
>>>>
>>>> Glitch on SDA-SCL not managed correctly by the I2C IP
>
>> drivers/mfd/tps65910.c | 5 +++++
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
>>> Applied, thanks.
>
>> Eh?
>
> So, this is an example of why it's important to both use subject lines
> matching the pattern for the subsystem and try to select CC lists
> sensibly. I've dropped the patch.
So, what is the proper subsystem in this case? mfd?
Should I repost with the subsystem in the subject?
BTW, while I'm asking questions: is this something that should be sent to stable?
Regards,
Arnout
--
Arnout Vandecappelle arnout at mind be
Senior Embedded Software Architect +32-16-286500
Essensium/Mind http://www.mind.be
G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven
LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle
GPG fingerprint: 7CB5 E4CC 6C2E EFD4 6E3D A754 F963 ECAB 2450 2F1F
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists