From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ej1-f48.google.com (mail-ej1-f48.google.com [209.85.218.48]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70B9D7A for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 20:48:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ej1-f48.google.com with SMTP id ss3so5088182ejc.11 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 13:48:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc; bh=Hj8U9na81wK1LpQEMnouXXM1glGKZ1/n4yT2ZjBsSPM=; b=FHNnpco0EB5PmciJdUcejUWujO92l7IErU8hH+r9eJGL+4ZGyXBHZHbCkD9e32wy06 1yy+YMOnXadzd1otL5afrABZZSMue1wUH/smZuQvSXOvDgYpi1Sso4+TxRh8V7UTaeFS 2jh9jjXfxXpfdaJvIFNsykJZxBdogVewZb1s4HJ4vsN7nx15MWJBttrVlVOJkaXbgoIE a3DmjzaMMoRArjRdph1l/T3d9NoJckjzlT8ncjFPB9irwfbuAsJ9cv6pGjvoxZcT2xY5 DedO2RNu/CsTpnhpjwpizIr6ARBc22T16zqwyfdEJhRLZqFOu4YiZvimItB513p1JeUV UQEQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=Hj8U9na81wK1LpQEMnouXXM1glGKZ1/n4yT2ZjBsSPM=; b=y0rR5T021lNzdnylJW9hu6isLAQuL7vTcLrMcpnYT5cAJUPRSFw4ep3e9b5ab41sox u7LHbnISH9exBT9HmjifBEZREU1RojJpw3yZLX0mplq9gh+jsNs0uG/oGll4gm3LGVMc dCWFcufXIRoeXE/NT/qIlj6oi/oPaDtBQIwJtdwAiR433YiU1GkfQ7ZYFQ0S6V96L78f 2Yap2Dc8ZGi6rLLayV/s2eZHy/eQ9DQs33Gr0dHHGVpbpZXq81lRvz6axYgvSCdW8RFB Pr+UYR7OZyGcvhnEPQn7lUjKxDe0kayL9mwuOJPGXaF8ez7v8eSytr2NrAMCMHlH9ZW6 gdqg== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora8I92wOC4TUQ6osnAb5ggP9fSvNzfQYf2j9HPb8Ecb1hhz2Gsom 5m9CloorFMOO0CZ/t4/R2D1y2WDU2MioQe4PwaE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1tsKkzS1CT8rCY6o8o9woxCrtMhsRoDBVhGwPNBqSKIaHxvRdCWJuHr+zGfGBcLeXJgsTOMtgmkoB63DfFCf/M= X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:6e02:b0:72b:9f16:1bc5 with SMTP id sd2-20020a1709076e0200b0072b9f161bc5mr519930ejc.676.1659041301407; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 13:48:21 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: llvm@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <202207190634.ToyhlXSz-lkp@intel.com> <0551a3ad-8c42-78fe-5b50-ebbc003e55e6@intel.com> In-Reply-To: From: Andy Shevchenko Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2022 22:47:44 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: Use u8 type in i2c transfer calls To: Jason Gerecke Cc: Jonathan Cameron , Lars-Peter Clausen , Wolfram Sang , linux-i2c , Ping Cheng , "Tobita, Tatsunosuke" , Jason Gerecke , llvm@lists.linux.dev, kbuild-all@lists.01.org, linux-iio , LKML Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 4:30 PM Jason Gerecke wrote: > On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 12:01 PM Jason Gerecke wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 5:21 PM kernel test robot wrote: > > Writing a patch to fix the new warnings generated by my I2C patch is > > simple enough, but I'd like some help coordinating getting both > > patches landed. Should I wait for the I2C patch to land in "for-next" > > before sending the IIO fix, or would it be preferred to send the IIO > > fix right now so that both patches can be reviewed simultaneously? > > It's been pretty quiet, so asking again for any thoughts on how to > best address this tangle... The rule of thumb is not to introduce an additional warning or compile error. I haven't looked deeply into this case, but it smells to me as if you need a new version of your initial patch that includes a fix to IIO. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5079804514587888163==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Andy Shevchenko To: kbuild-all@lists.01.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: Use u8 type in i2c transfer calls Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2022 22:47:44 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: List-Id: --===============5079804514587888163== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 4:30 PM Jason Gerecke wrot= e: > On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 12:01 PM Jason Gerecke w= rote: > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 5:21 PM kernel test robot wrote: > > Writing a patch to fix the new warnings generated by my I2C patch is > > simple enough, but I'd like some help coordinating getting both > > patches landed. Should I wait for the I2C patch to land in "for-next" > > before sending the IIO fix, or would it be preferred to send the IIO > > fix right now so that both patches can be reviewed simultaneously? > > It's been pretty quiet, so asking again for any thoughts on how to > best address this tangle... The rule of thumb is not to introduce an additional warning or compile erro= r. I haven't looked deeply into this case, but it smells to me as if you need = a new version of your initial patch that includes a fix to IIO. -- = With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko --===============5079804514587888163==--