On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 10:03:58AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 02/04/2014 17:55, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
> > smbus: allow returning an error from reads
> > smbus: return -1 if nothing found at the given address
> > pm_smbus: correctly report unclaimed cycles
> >>>
>
Il 02/04/2014 17:55, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
> > smbus: allow returning an error from reads
> > smbus: return -1 if nothing found at the given address
> > pm_smbus: correctly report unclaimed cycles
>
> I've reviewed these and they look sane and safe for 2.0.
> mst, could you have a
Il 02/04/2014 17:55, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
> I've reviewed these and they look sane and safe for 2.0.
> mst, could you have a second look as PC maintainer and take them?
I'd rather delay to 2.1.
It's not a regression is it?
No, I'm fine with 2.1 since I won't be around to fix mess.
P
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 11:58:57PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 31.03.2014 18:26, schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
> > This is a resend of the I2C patches I posted a while ago.
> > Patches 1-3 are just a rebase.
> >
> > Patch 4 is the same as before, patches 5-7 make the tmp105
> > testcase mo
Hi,
Am 31.03.2014 18:26, schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
> This is a resend of the I2C patches I posted a while ago.
> Patches 1-3 are just a rebase.
>
> Patch 4 is the same as before, patches 5-7 make the tmp105
> testcase more complete in order to test that change.
>
> Paolo Bonzini (7):
> smbus: all
This is a resend of the I2C patches I posted a while ago.
Patches 1-3 are just a rebase.
Patch 4 is the same as before, patches 5-7 make the tmp105
testcase more complete in order to test that change.
Paolo Bonzini (7):
smbus: allow returning an error from reads
smbus: return -1 if nothing fo
