| Message ID | 20210608172338.0cf520a1@endymion |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Rework block read support among i2cget and i2cdump | expand |
Hi Jean, > The idea would be to get the first 6 patches in the upcoming i2c-tools > v4.3, and apply the 7th patch "later" (either immediately after that > release, or some time later, I'm not sure). I agree with this approach. I had a glimpse at the patches and think they look good so far. I would have squashed patches 1+2, but this minor, of course. I'll try to test them this weekend, too. Let's see...
> The idea would be to get the first 6 patches in the upcoming i2c-tools > v4.3, and apply the 7th patch "later" (either immediately after that > release, or some time later, I'm not sure). So, my tests so far went nicely and looking more at the patches didn't reveal any major discussion point. So: Reviewed-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> Tested-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> I'd vote also for an early removal. The code cleanup is too nice and i2cget is, in deed, the better place for mode 's'.
Hi Wolfram, On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 17:30:25 +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > The idea would be to get the first 6 patches in the upcoming i2c-tools > > v4.3, and apply the 7th patch "later" (either immediately after that > > release, or some time later, I'm not sure). > > I agree with this approach. > > I had a glimpse at the patches and think they look good so far. I would > have squashed patches 1+2, but this minor, of course. I would have too but patch 1 was submitted by somebody else. I didn't want to put more changes in it than was required for committing acceptance, so as to respect the original submission.
Hi Wolfram, On Sun, 27 Jun 2021 12:27:40 +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > The idea would be to get the first 6 patches in the upcoming i2c-tools > > v4.3, and apply the 7th patch "later" (either immediately after that > > release, or some time later, I'm not sure). > > So, my tests so far went nicely and looking more at the patches didn't > reveal any major discussion point. So: > > Reviewed-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> > Tested-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> > > I'd vote also for an early removal. The code cleanup is too nice and > i2cget is, in deed, the better place for mode 's'. Thanks for the review and testing, very much appreciated. I have committed the first 6 patches, with cosmetic fixes after a last self-review. With this, we are ready to release i2c-tools 4.3.
> I would have too but patch 1 was submitted by somebody else. I didn't > want to put more changes in it than was required for committing > acceptance, so as to respect the original submission. I see. This is fine, of course. Glad to see the patches upstream!