[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <DB7PR04MB449066A2FFBC78B0645B8FCC8F470@DB7PR04MB4490.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 10:46:23 +0000
From: Biwen Li <biwen.li@....com>
To: Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>, Leo Li <leoyang.li@....com>,
"robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>
CC: "linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: [v5,2/3] i2c: mux: pca954x: support property idle-state
> Caution: EXT Email
>
> On 2019-11-15 11:21, Biwen Li wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > Any comments?
> > If no comments, could you give me a reviewed-by?
>
> I would have liked a comment from the driver maintainer or a tested-by from
> someone with another case than yours. But now that I check I see that there -
> contrary to my assumption - is no maintainer listed. So, I think it looks fine, and
> I'm sure it compiles cleanly etc if I test that, but I can't test runtime behavior
> myself since I don't have the HW. I should have been clearer about this, and
> should have double checked the maintainer status instead of relying on what I
> thought. I have simply been extremely busy and that slipped. Sorry.
>
> But I'll try to squeeze this into linux-next tomorrow, because if look safe, and
> hopefully any problem will become apparent.
>
> Giving a reviewed-by seemed pointless, when I'm the one picking it up :-)
Okay, got it, thanks.
Best Regards,
Biwen Li
>
> Cheers,
> Peter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists