From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751661AbcFWUz6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jun 2016 16:55:58 -0400 Received: from mail-pf0-f194.google.com ([209.85.192.194]:34116 "EHLO mail-pf0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751390AbcFWUz4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jun 2016 16:55:56 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:55:52 -0700 From: Dmitry Torokhov To: Wolfram Sang Cc: Benjamin Tissoires , Jonathan Corbet , Corey Minyard , Jean Delvare , Guenter Roeck , Andrew Duggan , Christopher Heiny , linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-input@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 3/4] i2c: i801: add support of Host Notify Message-ID: <20160623205552.GO32561@dtor-ws> References: <1465484030-28838-1-git-send-email-benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com> <1465484030-28838-4-git-send-email-benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com> <20160615081247.GQ24234@mail.corp.redhat.com> <20160616060942.GA1403@tetsubishi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160616060942.GA1403@tetsubishi> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 08:09:42AM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > - removed the .resume hook as upstream changed suspend/resume hooks and there > > > is no need in the end to re-enable host notify on resume (tested on Lenovo > > > t440 and t450). > > > > Actually, this hook seemed to be required on the Lenovo T440 (Haswell) > > but not on the T450 (Broadwell) laptop I have now here. > > > > Wolfram, I can resend the whole series or a follow-up patch to re-enable > > after resume Host Notify. How do you prefer I deal with that? > > That depends a little how we want to handle patch 4. I am going to apply > patches 1+2 today to my tree. Then you can just resend patch 3 which I > hope will get some review soon, but I will pick it up for 4.8 later > nonetheless. If it is not causing too much dependency hassle, I'd prefer > that patch 4 goes via Dmitry's input tree. Any chance I could get a stable branch with these 2 patches based on 4.6 so that I can pull it and merge the #4? This way we do not need to wait for 2 releases to merge everything... Thanks. -- Dmitry