On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 08:57:02AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 02:11:23PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > > > Which means your original patch starts to make a lot more sense. I
> > > > wonder is this is really what we should be doing though - breaking out
> > > > of the loop, I mean.
> > 
> > Yup, that is fine. I applied the old patch with Acks from Hein and
> > Felipe to -next. Thanks!
> > 
> > > It looks like TI's i2c-davinci will have the same problem as i2c-omap,
> > > and will need the same change.
> > 
> > Somebody up for this?
> 
> I would suggest deleting i2c-davinci and making sure it can use
> i2c-omap. It's the same IP anyway. Just an older version which was used
> back in OMAP1 times.

Yay, I'd love such a patch...

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to