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;
Date:   Sun, 31 Jul 2022 13:43:47 +0100
From:   Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
To:     Jason Gerecke <killertofu@gmail.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>,
        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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: Use u8 type in i2c transfer calls
Message-ID: <20220731134347.19fcfbe7@jic23-huawei>
In-Reply-To: <CANRwn3SH2Z5n5so4FcymzgN-KAciHGo=tuXUheVttc2+vQeRqg@mail.gmail.com>
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>
        <CAHp75VfFrkDLOC2+5WUmVGBLfoxVbDzJKyLN0+Z+XrZzpkYDkQ@mail.gmail.com>
        <CANRwn3SH2Z5n5so4FcymzgN-KAciHGo=tuXUheVttc2+vQeRqg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 28 Jul 2022 15:48:59 -0700
Jason Gerecke <killertofu@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 1:48 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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  
> 
> 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...

I suspect this will be likely to create merge conflicts, so submit it like
that and I'll probably ask Wolfram to do an immutable branch that I can
then pull into IIO.  Hence we'll have exactly the same commits (IDs and all)
in both IIO and I2C trees.

Jonathan

> 
> Jason