[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75VfFrkDLOC2+5WUmVGBLfoxVbDzJKyLN0+Z+XrZzpkYDkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2022 22:47:44 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Jason Gerecke <killertofu@...il.com>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa-dev@...g-engineering.com>,
linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
Ping Cheng <pinglinux@...il.com>,
"Tobita, Tatsunosuke" <tatsunosuke.tobita@...om.com>,
Jason Gerecke <jason.gerecke@...om.com>, llvm@...ts.linux.dev,
kbuild-all@...ts.01.org, linux-iio <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: Use u8 type in i2c transfer calls
On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 4:30 PM Jason Gerecke <killertofu@...il.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 12:01 PM Jason Gerecke <killertofu@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 5:21 PM kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@...el.com> wrote:
> > Writing a patch to fix the new warnings generated by my I2C patch is
> > simple enough, but I'd like some help coordinating getting both
> > patches landed. Should I wait for the I2C patch to land in "for-next"
> > before sending the IIO fix, or would it be preferred to send the IIO
> > fix right now so that both patches can be reviewed simultaneously?
>
> It's been pretty quiet, so asking again for any thoughts on how to
> best address this tangle...
The rule of thumb is not to introduce an additional warning or compile error.
I haven't looked deeply into this case, but it smells to me as if you need a new
version of your initial patch that includes a fix to IIO.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists