[i2c] Where do all the patches go?

[Jean Delvare]

Hi Nishanth,

On Sun, 06 May 2007 19:47:08 -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> Jean Delvare stated on 5/5/2007 3:44 PM:
> >> present two patches: one for the driver/core; the second for the
> >> test-tool used to test the functionality. this way all of us can be on
> >> the same page - instead of multiple variants of the same. Ofcourse, I
> >
> > "Multiple variants of the same" what? What do you mean?
>
> Call it custom i2c lm-sensor  apps, which cater to specific features
> that each user wanted.. When i look at it, i would hope, for example,
> that when i do i2c_dump i would like to have an option for deciding if
> it is multibyte.. i did change it, but did not know how to push back to
> community..
> I am sure some one else could benefit from that.. some minor things like
> that.

There are no "custom i2c lm-sensor apps". It's not like there were
several versions of i2cdump, one official and one specifically modified
for lm-sensors. There's only one version. It lives in the lm-sensors
package for historical reasons, but is nonetheless a generic tool. If
you have patches for the i2c tools, they are welcome, just send them on
the i2c list.

> > Right now, the i2c tools are in the lm_sensors package. This might not
> > be very practical, but this doesn't change anything with regards to the
> > above scenario. You'd send a patch against the kernel tree for
> > i2c-core, and one against the lm_sensors tree for the tools.
>
> Yes, I was not aware that I could send patches of lm_sensor tools to the
> list.. Sigh, looks like the option of splitting lm_sensor tools from
> i2c_tools may not be feasible in immediate future... :(

It's rather "splitting the i2c tools from lm_sensors" than the other
way around. And it might actually happen, I'm thinking about it.

-- 
Jean Delvare