Message-ID: <383fda33-143d-9e8e-1f7d-080931ae4496@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 25 Jan 2023 14:38:59 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.6.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH resend 0/2] i2c/extcon: intel-cht-wc: Lenovo Yoga Tab 3
 Pro YT3-X90F support
Content-Language: en-US, nl
To:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@kernel.org>,
        MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@samsung.com>,
        Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com>,
        linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
References: <20230125111209.18343-1-hdegoede@redhat.com>
 <Y9Et7nlUmiiPrFUQ@ninjato>
From:   Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <Y9Et7nlUmiiPrFUQ@ninjato>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On 1/25/23 14:26, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> 
>> I'm resending these 2 patches since they seem to have fallen through
>> the cracks.
> 
> Which tree should the patches go via? I am assuming not-i2c, but maybe I
> am wrong?

That is a good point. I was under the assumption that the matching MFD
patch, which I did not resend, was already merged. But I'm wrong,
sorry about this.

So I'll do a v2 resend with 3 patches which does include the MFD
patch and then I guess ideally all 3 patches would go through
the MFD tree.

Wolfram, may I/we have your ack for merging the small i2c change
through the MFD tree?

The extcon patch already has an ack for that. So I'll hold of
on sending out a v2 with the missing patch until I have your
ack, so that v2 will be fully ready to merge through the MFD
tree.

Regards,

Hans