From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] i2c-mpc: generate START condition after STOP caused by read i2c_msg Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 22:34:18 +0200 Message-ID: <87ws8155md.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> References: <4A124202.4010201@doredevelopment.dk> <20090526213351.GG23114@fluff.org.uk> <20090528171726.GE3112@pengutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: In-Reply-To: (Esben Haabendal's message of "Thu\, 28 May 2009 22\:10\:56 +0200") Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Esben Haabendal Cc: Wolfram Sang , Ben Dooks , linuxppc-dev-mnsaURCQ41sdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Esben Haabendal , Joakim Tjernlund List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org >>>>> "Esben" == Esben Haabendal writes: Hi, >> I wanted to test it, but it does not apply due to line breaks (check >> @@-line). Also, I don't really have the time to dig into the topic, so I >> would only test it and give a tested-by-tag if it doesn't break anything >> here. I think Joakim would be a good candidate for an acked-by . Esben> I've checked both my copy in my "Sent" folder and the copy Esben> received from the list, and I cannot see any "line break" Esben> breakage of the patch. I guess Wolfram referred to the context line which was clearly word wrapped: @@ -456,17 +456,22 @@ static int mpc_xfer(struct i2c_adapter *adap, struct i2c_msg *msgs, int num) The other lines look fine. -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-fx0-f174.google.com (mail-fx0-f174.google.com [209.85.220.174]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1F6DDDF62 for ; Fri, 29 May 2009 06:39:38 +1000 (EST) Received: by fxm22 with SMTP id 22so5792646fxm.9 for ; Thu, 28 May 2009 13:39:36 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Peter Korsgaard To: Esben Haabendal Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] i2c-mpc: generate START condition after STOP caused by read i2c_msg References: <4A124202.4010201@doredevelopment.dk> <20090526213351.GG23114@fluff.org.uk> <20090528171726.GE3112@pengutronix.de> From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 22:34:18 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Esben Haabendal's message of "Thu\, 28 May 2009 22\:10\:56 +0200") Message-ID: <87ws8155md.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Esben Haabendal , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, Ben Dooks List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , >>>>> "Esben" == Esben Haabendal writes: Hi, >> I wanted to test it, but it does not apply due to line breaks (check >> @@-line). Also, I don't really have the time to dig into the topic, so I >> would only test it and give a tested-by-tag if it doesn't break anything >> here. I think Joakim would be a good candidate for an acked-by . Esben> I've checked both my copy in my "Sent" folder and the copy Esben> received from the list, and I cannot see any "line break" Esben> breakage of the patch. I guess Wolfram referred to the context line which was clearly word wrapped: @@ -456,17 +456,22 @@ static int mpc_xfer(struct i2c_adapter *adap, struct i2c_msg *msgs, int num) The other lines look fine. -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard