From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-yw1-f178.google.com (mail-yw1-f178.google.com [209.85.128.178]) (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 D49AD7A for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 22:48:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw1-f178.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-31f41584236so34321817b3.5 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 15:48:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=IbbIwNHYA5fQMBY7syKbTH1UwgoGIprYwzTKm582+h0=; b=TlEJ6Ruu4n0OcOMH/kNl+yUxKyVkTDjntX+0bKHpRUyDzlHVanmpZP2JTZRyjeGbqr h9QMOT35fNBH+EMy/HUeZF/EYb/TPovcKSOB3q0fqXWtjfp4HnJBw2F9CY+eon8eV1Jf Ul6t5tPQP5QhXYftUWF/0hEO56pz1fsppXMMQzfap0hWGCOHLOy3SISAioovIqtlS8Fw cLvI+Az7YceG8PAEoYenIsVreiAh1MMlBTJbFMaaSTIX3RWAoKJztTvbH95/F1XhRnC5 vTSc6F1r88SyDur7K7AQ7tbFy6kfE/9PQqBOQAj+muPHKdenSqBYss/jb2kYj+Pgv//N GAFQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=IbbIwNHYA5fQMBY7syKbTH1UwgoGIprYwzTKm582+h0=; b=yWinTYcXjDGRH2o3VXmkClqFxdR5b+F/Y+fSkxF+RC5KBRjVQnMbfnDjZBhO5vAtGG gNPDosfu/mjrzX8eVHRILnYqTSZSOgUMHsve5Qu5YzuF//Etz7HscBkdLJpk4WXrvD/q WBki9JJj1a+zYIZO3NX5c08wdlRDkEmp46hdnS5tSRX6NXSWTi/vUras2QfkmEeRYwih /Zs/Iia5kTec/19wjwDbr9oXiApKEn3wfocioXPITFtNsnnUO380X5SHhs21Y14hpydk yj4gsKa1uyC0hwUxB23ywfFStYhjXlpQRW0qEr/GqoTL8N3GID5ic/nNE3vuIT0fLet+ 5zjA== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo2CxtzT6CMJwWHrtOnvfEQxyQyODtufgti8LwplcMQjW5wp357a kq/8B9R+EMzta5ib01jSoJqJBlsgqNgSvbAqAlxQEi7ePE3uVg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR6/s/iZvfkJGZABz6Eu7j8VuDO5qbShjSiqVGx4ORVST12Al5dEVLSCk1fAyA9mOHgfJmwp/hWxQOFxJ5Kew9k= X-Received: by 2002:a81:85c5:0:b0:31c:1f50:1bbb with SMTP id v188-20020a8185c5000000b0031c1f501bbbmr819183ywf.3.1659048524769; Thu, 28 Jul 2022 15:48:44 -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: Jason Gerecke Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2022 15:48:59 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: Use u8 type in i2c transfer calls To: Andy Shevchenko 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 1:48 PM Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > 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 Thanks! Since the patch would touch both IIO and I2C I assume I would submit it to both mailinglists. And that whichever maintainer gets to it first would just give their Reviewed-by (if all looks good) and the second applies the Signed-off-by and handles the merge? I'll work on the updated combined patch... Jason From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2134286650909454304==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Jason Gerecke To: kbuild-all@lists.01.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: Use u8 type in i2c transfer calls Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2022 15:48:59 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: List-Id: --===============2134286650909454304== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 1:48 PM Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 4:30 PM Jason Gerecke wr= ote: > > 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 er= ror. > I haven't looked deeply into this case, but it smells to me as if you nee= d a new > version of your initial patch that includes a fix to IIO. > > > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko Thanks! Since the patch would touch both IIO and I2C I assume I would submit it to both mailinglists. And that whichever maintainer gets to it first would just give their Reviewed-by (if all looks good) and the second applies the Signed-off-by and handles the merge? I'll work on the updated combined patch... Jason --===============2134286650909454304==--