> A question on best practices here... I already did a v8 (but only as
> a branch) so I think this will be v9, bit that's a minor detail. The
> real question is what I should do about patches 1-15 that are already
> in next? Send them too? If not, should I send 16-24 with the same old
> patch numb
On 2016-05-03 23:39, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>> Yes, they look like reasonable complaints.
>
> Thanks for fixing them. I just sent out my latest comments and when you
> fix those and send V8, I'll apply that right away. I think we are safe
> to fix the rest incrementally if needed. Note that I didn'
Hi Peter,
thanks for the detailed explanation!
> So maybe there should be only one flag, e.g. I2C_LOCK_ROOT_ADAPTER?
> I.e. perhaps leave the future for later?
I think this makes the current code easier understandable at this point,
but I'll leave the decision to you. I am fine with both. Maybe
Hi!
On 2016-05-03 23:38, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 05:17:56PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> Add i2c_lock_bus() and i2c_unlock_bus(), which call the new lock_bus and
>> unlock_bus ops in the adapter. These funcs/ops take an additional flags
>> argument that indicates for what pur
> Yes, they look like reasonable complaints.
Thanks for fixing them. I just sent out my latest comments and when you
fix those and send V8, I'll apply that right away. I think we are safe
to fix the rest incrementally if needed. Note that I didn't review the
IIO and media patches, I trust the revi
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 05:17:56PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Add i2c_lock_bus() and i2c_unlock_bus(), which call the new lock_bus and
> unlock_bus ops in the adapter. These funcs/ops take an additional flags
> argument that indicates for what purpose the adapter is locked.
>
> There are two flag
On 04/29/2016 12:16 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
On 2016-04-29 09:16, Wolfram Sang wrote:
Yes, obviously... I'll make that change locally and wait for the rest.
Another nit: You could use '--strict' with checkpatch and see if you
want to fix the issues reported. I am not keen on those (except for
'sp
On 2016-04-29 09:16, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>> Yes, obviously... I'll make that change locally and wait for the rest.
> Another nit: You could use '--strict' with checkpatch and see if you
> want to fix the issues reported. I am not keen on those (except for
> 'space around operators'), it's a matter
> Yes, obviously... I'll make that change locally and wait for the rest.
Another nit: You could use '--strict' with checkpatch and see if you
want to fix the issues reported. I am not keen on those (except for
'space around operators'), it's a matter of taste I guess, but maybe you
like some of th
On 2016-04-28 22:50, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 05:17:56PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> Add i2c_lock_bus() and i2c_unlock_bus(), which call the new lock_bus and
>> unlock_bus ops in the adapter. These funcs/ops take an additional flags
>> argument that indicates for what purpos
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 05:17:56PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Add i2c_lock_bus() and i2c_unlock_bus(), which call the new lock_bus and
> unlock_bus ops in the adapter. These funcs/ops take an additional flags
> argument that indicates for what purpose the adapter is locked.
>
> There are two flag
Add i2c_lock_bus() and i2c_unlock_bus(), which call the new lock_bus and
unlock_bus ops in the adapter. These funcs/ops take an additional flags
argument that indicates for what purpose the adapter is locked.
There are two flags, I2C_LOCK_ADAPTER and I2C_LOCK_SEGMENT, but they are
both implemented
12 matches
Mail list logo
