Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-148948-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 22:27:52 +0530
From: Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>
To: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@kernel.org>
Cc: konrad.dybcio@linaro.org, andersson@kernel.org, wsa@kernel.org,
	linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, dmaengine@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org,
	Mukesh Kumar Savaliya <quic_msavaliy@quicinc.com>,
	quic_vdadhani@quicinc.com,
	Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] i2c: i2c-qcom-geni: Parse Error correctly in i2c GSI
 mode
Message-ID: <Zh__kAdzU8a2DHLH@matsya>
References: <20240313052639.1747078-1-quic_msavaliy@quicinc.com>
 <171161140136.2698925.4294566764047886777.b4-ty@kernel.org>
 <ZgbwJAb7Ffktf554@matsya>
 <a76mmz5xrfipqpmq2ltsyobwc54dyw2d55gb4vta5d746dwb3i@5mm2ew5uudi3>
 <ZhJVgDVthhr4hISg@matsya>
 <j3zupurwq5vtzfwby7ubl7ft75fqqhutk4vfqolihkcldfcesi@ywwfnkjcfhgu>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <j3zupurwq5vtzfwby7ubl7ft75fqqhutk4vfqolihkcldfcesi@ywwfnkjcfhgu>

On 16-04-24, 17:05, Andi Shyti wrote:

> > > Anyway, the changes are in -next. What do we do now? Do I revert
> > > it? Mukesh, can you please agree with Vinod?
> > 
> > I dont apply patches to other subsystem without the ack. Either way you
> > can ask always! 
> 
> Yes, you are totally right; but please, keep in mind that this
> patch has some history and I would have loved to hear from you
> earlier. Anyway...

There was merge window, I dont look up during that. Then I had some
family stuff and travel to take care... Things happen.

When in doubt pls ask, a gentle reminder goes long way!

> 
> > I will leave it upto you...
> 
> ... Mukesh, I'm sorry, but I'm going to revert this patch again
> until we address all the last minute issues from Vinod. The
> silence on this thread is worrying me more than reverting it.
> 
> I hope this will be the last time I revert this patch.
> 
> Moreover, in order to avoid maintainers' rumble (:)), please
> let's try to split patches that are touching more than one
> subsystems keeping the logical meainings intact.

That is best. Very rarely we have a situation where we add
changes which break bisect and it has to be clubbed together. But for
other cases, it should always be split!

> I hope this is fine with you, Vinod.

Thank you for understanding

-- 
~Vinod