Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <202207190634.ToyhlXSz-lkp@intel.com> <0551a3ad-8c42-78fe-5b50-ebbc003e55e6@intel.com>
 <CANRwn3R48rvwnygdyKhmFE8wD+BCCHrTWa-M=uTvpnK5Jo3vww@mail.gmail.com> <CANRwn3Tgumg-mZ9sV=8AXevag9z2s=mTF4qqZW2KenDmc9b1wQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANRwn3Tgumg-mZ9sV=8AXevag9z2s=mTF4qqZW2KenDmc9b1wQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 28 Jul 2022 22:47:44 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHp75VfFrkDLOC2+5WUmVGBLfoxVbDzJKyLN0+Z+XrZzpkYDkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: Use u8 type in i2c transfer calls
To:     Jason Gerecke <killertofu@gmail.com>
Cc:     Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa-dev@sang-engineering.com>,
        linux-i2c <linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ping Cheng <pinglinux@gmail.com>,
        "Tobita, Tatsunosuke" <tatsunosuke.tobita@wacom.com>,
        Jason Gerecke <jason.gerecke@wacom.com>, llvm@lists.linux.dev,
        kbuild-all@lists.01.org, linux-iio <linux-iio@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 4:30 PM Jason Gerecke <killertofu@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 12:01 PM Jason Gerecke <killertofu@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 5:21 PM kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@intel.com> 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