[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AM6PR10MB2181D2A08D98FB9F8092EC8DFEE40@AM6PR10MB2181.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 12:44:50 +0000
From: Steve Twiss <stwiss.opensource@...semi.com>
To: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
"wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com" <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>
CC: "bgolaszewski@...libre.com" <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
"kieran.bingham+renesas@...asonboard.com"
<kieran.bingham+renesas@...asonboard.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
"peda@...ntia.se" <peda@...ntia.se>,
Support Opensource <Support.Opensource@...semi.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] mfd: da9063: occupy second I2C address, too
On 20 June 2019 13:29, Lee Jones wrote:
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: da9063: occupy second I2C address, too
>
> Why isn't this reply attached (threaded) to the patch.
My apologies. It wasn't my intention to split Wolfram's original e-mail thread.
I don't usually reply using the mailto: link from lore when creating e-mails.
Outlook mustn't support the In-Reply-To header.
I'll figure out a different way to reply in future.
> Is your mailer broken?
It's Windows
Powered by blists - more mailing lists