Re: [PATCH v0 00/14] Make I2C terminology more inclusive for I2C Algobit and consumers

[Wolfram Sang]

Hi Easwar,

> Sorry, got excited. :) There were drivers I'd been part of that I specifically
> wanted to fixup, but then the scope grew to other users of algobit.

Well, you got some positive feedback, so that is good.

> > It is true that I changed quite some controller drivers within the i2c
> > realm. I did this to gain experience. As you also noticed quite some
> > questions came up. We need to agree on answers first. And once we are
> > happy with the answers we found, then IMO we can go outside of the i2c
> > realm and send patches to other subsystems referencing agreed
> > precedence. I intentionally did not go outside i2c yet. Since your
> > patches are already there, you probably want to foster them until they
> > are ready for inclusion.
> 
> Sorry, I don't quite follow what you mean by foster in this context. Are
> you asking me to hold off on merging the series, or to follow through on
> getting it merged?

I think they are your patches, so this is up to you to decide. With
"foster", I meant you keep working on them until everyone is happy. I
haven't looked at the drivers you modify. I can't tell if they can be
converted right away or if they use a lot of I2C API calls, so that it
makes sense to wait until the core is converted. I trust you to decide
this.

Happy hacking,

   Wolfram

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature