On 2017-03-23 10:00, Mike Looijmans wrote: > The spec for the pca9546 was missing. This chip is the same as the pca9545 > except that it lacks interrupt lines. While the i2c_device_id table mapped > the pca9546 to the pca9545 definition the compatible table did not.
Ouch, good catch, I have committed this to my i2c-mux for-current branch. Cheers, peda > Signed-off-by: Mike Looijmans <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-pca954x.c | 6 +++++- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-pca954x.c > b/drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-pca954x.c > index dfc1c0e..69c2f5a 100644 > --- a/drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-pca954x.c > +++ b/drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-pca954x.c > @@ -117,6 +117,10 @@ struct pca954x { > .has_irq = 1, > .muxtype = pca954x_isswi, > }, > + [pca_9546] = { > + .nchans = 4, > + .muxtype = pca954x_isswi, > + }, > [pca_9547] = { > .nchans = 8, > .enable = 0x8, > @@ -134,7 +138,7 @@ struct pca954x { > { "pca9543", pca_9543 }, > { "pca9544", pca_9544 }, > { "pca9545", pca_9545 }, > - { "pca9546", pca_9545 }, > + { "pca9546", pca_9546 }, > { "pca9547", pca_9547 }, > { "pca9548", pca_9548 }, > { } >
