Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/7] i2c: core: introduce atomic transfers

2019-03-06 Thread Peter Rosin
On 2019-03-04 23:48, Wolfram Sang wrote: > Hi Peda, > >> The way I read this series, you are not giving atomic transfers priority. The > > You are reading correctly. I could have made more clear that the issue > pointed out by Russell is not handled by this series but discussion > about it is wel

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/7] i2c: core: introduce atomic transfers

2019-03-04 Thread Wolfram Sang
Hi Peda, > The way I read this series, you are not giving atomic transfers priority. The You are reading correctly. I could have made more clear that the issue pointed out by Russell is not handled by this series but discussion about it is welcome / needed to decide if we can take this series as

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/7] i2c: core: introduce atomic transfers

2019-03-04 Thread Peter Rosin
On 2019-03-02 14:47, Wolfram Sang wrote: > So, finally, here is the second RFC for supporting I2C transfers in atomic > contexts (i.e. very late). This will need some text because I tried some > things > on the way but had to discard them. However, I think it is important to have > that documented

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/7] i2c: core: introduce atomic transfers

2019-03-02 Thread Andy Shevchenko
On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 3:49 PM Wolfram Sang wrote: > > So, finally, here is the second RFC for supporting I2C transfers in atomic > contexts (i.e. very late). This will need some text because I tried some > things > on the way but had to discard them. However, I think it is important to have > th

[RFC PATCH v2 0/7] i2c: core: introduce atomic transfers

2019-03-02 Thread Wolfram Sang
So, finally, here is the second RFC for supporting I2C transfers in atomic contexts (i.e. very late). This will need some text because I tried some things on the way but had to discard them. However, I think it is important to have that documented. One thing I really wanted to have is a kind of wh