Hi Anton, On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:44:24 +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 06:12:19PM +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > > of/base.c matches on the first (most specific) entries, which isn't > > quite practical but it was discussed[1] that this won't change. > > > > The bindings specifies verbose information for the devices, but > > it doesn't fit in the I2C ID's 20 characters limit. The limit won't > > change[2], and the bindings won't change either as they're correct. > > > > So we have to put an exception for the MPC8349E-mITX-compatible > > MCUs. > > > > [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg21196.html > > [2] > > http://www.nabble.com/-PATCH-1-2--i2c:-expand-I2C's-id.name-to-23-characters-td19577063.html > > > > Signed-off-by: Anton Vorontsov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > --- > > drivers/of/base.c | 2 +- > > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > Any issues with this or the second patch? Can we merge them?
I do not have the time to review these patches (and, honestly, have no interest in them.) So I will not merge them but I have no objection to them being merged by somebody else. -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ i2c mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c
