When there was no other way to match a I2C device to driver i2c_match_id()
was exclusively used. However, now there are other types of tables which
are commonly supplied, matching on an i2c_device_id table is used less
frequently. Instead of _always_ calling i2c_match_id() from within the
This function provides a single call for all I2C devices which need to
match firstly using traditional OF means i.e by of_node, then if that
fails we attempt to match using the supplied I2C client name with a
list of supplied compatible strings with the 'vendor,' string
removed. The latter is
Also remove unused second probe() parameter 'i2c_device_id'.
Acked-by: Grant Likely grant.lik...@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org
---
drivers/mfd/as3722.c | 12 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mfd/as3722.c
As part of an effort to rid the mostly unused second parameter for I2C
related .probe() functions and to conform to other existing frameworks
we're moving over to a temporary replacement .probe() call-back.
Acked-by: Grant Likely grant.lik...@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones
This will aid the seamless removal of the current probe()'s, more
commonly unused than used second parameter. Most I2C drivers can
simply switch over to the new interface, others which have DT
support can use its own matching instead and others can call
i2c_match_id() themselves. This brings
Currently the I2C framework insists on devices supplying an I2C ID
table. Many of the devices which do so unnecessarily adding quite a
few wasted lines to kernel code. This patch allows drivers a means
to 'not' supply the aforementioned table and match on DT match tables
instead.
Acked-by:
Here we're providing dereference protection for i2c_match_id(), which
saves us having to do it each time it's called. We're also stripping
out the (now) needless checks in i2c_device_match(). This patch paves
the way for other, similar code trimming.
Acked-by: Grant Likely
Hi Wolfram,
As previously discussed I believe it should be okay for an I2C device
driver _not_ supply an I2C ID table to match to. The I2C subsystem
should be able to match via other means, such as via OF tables. The
blocking factor during our previous conversation was to keep
registering via
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org
---
arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig
b/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig
index 91af0a9..57335e1 100644
--- a/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig
+++
drivers/gpio/gpio-crystalcove.c: In function 'crystalcove_gpio_dbg_show':
drivers/gpio/gpio-crystalcove.c:286:3: error: implicit declaration of function
'seq_printf'
seq_printf(s, gpio-%-2d %s %s %s %s ctlo=%2x,%s %s %s\n,
Reported-by: Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au
Signed-off-by:
A great deal of I2C devices are currently matched via DT node name, and
as such the compatible naming convention of 'vendor,device' has gone
somewhat awry - some nodes don't supply one, some supply an arbitrary
string and others the correct device name with an arbitrary vendor prefix.
In an
Hello,
in the documentation i found at
http://ww2.cs.fsu.edu/~rosentha/linux/2.6.26.5/docs/DocBook/kernel-api/re1222.html
the following sentence:
Note that using this function requires that the client's adapter
support the I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_READ_BLOCK_DATA functionality. Not all
adapter drivers
Hi Doug,
Doug Anderson diand...@chromium.org writes:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Kevin Hilman khil...@linaro.org wrote:
Doug Anderson diand...@chromium.org writes:
The original code for the exynos i2c controller registered for the
noirq variants. However during review feedback it was
Kevin,
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Kevin Hilman khil...@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Doug,
Doug Anderson diand...@chromium.org writes:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Kevin Hilman khil...@linaro.org wrote:
Doug Anderson diand...@chromium.org writes:
The original code for the exynos i2c
Doug Anderson diand...@chromium.org writes:
Kevin,
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Kevin Hilman khil...@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Doug,
Doug Anderson diand...@chromium.org writes:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Kevin Hilman khil...@linaro.org wrote:
Doug Anderson diand...@chromium.org
Kevin,
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Kevin Hilman khil...@linaro.org wrote:
Doug Anderson diand...@chromium.org writes:
Kevin,
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Kevin Hilman khil...@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Doug,
Doug Anderson diand...@chromium.org writes:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:43
On 21.06.2014 01:53, Doug Anderson wrote:
Kevin,
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Kevin Hilman khil...@linaro.org wrote:
Doug Anderson diand...@chromium.org writes:
Kevin,
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Kevin Hilman khil...@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Doug,
Doug Anderson
17 matches
Mail list logo