On Tuesday 24 April 2012 02:28 PM, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:49:35 +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>> The slave address of device to be configured in packet
>> header as follows:
>> 7 bit address: PacketHeader3[7:1]
>> 10 bit address: PacketHeader3[9:0]
>>
>> Fixing the code to make packet header3 properly.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Laxman Dewangan<[email protected]>
>> ---
>>
>>
> Looks good.
>
> Acked-by: Jean Delvare<[email protected]>
>
Hi Wolfram Sang,
Can it be apply? This is independent of other change in this series
which is under discussion/review.
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 11:43:14AM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 April 2012 02:28 PM, Jean Delvare wrote:
> >On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:49:35 +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> >>The slave address of device to be configured in packet
> >>header as follows:
> >> 7 bit address: PacketHeader3[7:1]
> >> 10 bit address: PacketHeader3[9:0]
> >>
> >>Fixing the code to make packet header3 properly.
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Laxman Dewangan<[email protected]>
> >>---
> >>
> >Looks good.
> >
> >Acked-by: Jean Delvare<[email protected]>
> >
> Can it be apply? This is independent of other change in this series
> which is under discussion/review.
Applied to next. Or do you need it in 3.4?
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
On Thursday 03 May 2012 01:48 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> * PGP Signed by an unknown key
>
> On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 11:43:14AM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>> On Tuesday 24 April 2012 02:28 PM, Jean Delvare wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:49:35 +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>>>> The slave address of device to be configured in packet
>>>> header as follows:
>>>> 7 bit address: PacketHeader3[7:1]
>>>> 10 bit address: PacketHeader3[9:0]
>>>>
>>>> Fixing the code to make packet header3 properly.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Laxman Dewangan<[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>> Looks good.
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Jean Delvare<[email protected]>
>>>
>> Can it be apply? This is independent of other change in this series
>> which is under discussion/review.
> Applied to next. Or do you need it in 3.4?
>
I dont need it on 3.4. It is fine to apply for next only.