On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 02:11:23PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > > Which means your original patch starts to make a lot more sense. I
> > > wonder is this is really what we should be doing though - breaking out
> > > of the loop, I mean.
> 
> Yup, that is fine. I applied the old patch with Acks from Hein and
> Felipe to -next. Thanks!
> 
> > It looks like TI's i2c-davinci will have the same problem as i2c-omap,
> > and will need the same change.
> 
> Somebody up for this?

I would suggest deleting i2c-davinci and making sure it can use
i2c-omap. It's the same IP anyway. Just an older version which was used
back in OMAP1 times.

-- 
balbi