On Thursday 05 July 2012, Qiao Zhou wrote:
+
+static const struct i2c_device_id pm80x_id_table[] = {
+ {88PM800, CHIP_PM800},
+ {88PM805, CHIP_PM805},
+};
+MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, pm80x_id_table);
The point of moving the table to the individual drivers was that the
right one can
On Wednesday 04 July 2012, Qiao Zhou wrote:
88PM800 and 88PM805 are two discrete chips used for power management.
Hardware designer can use them together or only one of them according
to requirement.
88pm80x_i2c.c provides common i2c driver handling for both 800 and
805, such as i2c_driver
+ret = mfd_add_devices(chip-dev, 0, onkey_devs[0],
+ ARRAY_SIZE(onkey_devs), onkey_resources[0],
+ chip-irq_base);
According to what I discussed with Mark in the previous version, I think you
need to pass 0 instead of chip-irq_base here,
On Wednesday 04 July 2012, Qiao Zhou wrote:
+ ret = mfd_add_devices(chip-dev, 0, onkey_devs[0],
+ARRAY_SIZE(onkey_devs), onkey_resources[0],
+chip-irq_base);
According to what I discussed with Mark in the previous version, I think you
need
On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 03:27:13PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 04 July 2012, Qiao Zhou wrote:
On the other hand, I think it probably makes sense to drop the irq_base
member in this struct and rely on irq domains to allocate them dynamically
as mentioned before.
Do you mean
On Wednesday 04 July 2012, Qiao Zhou wrote:
+ret = mfd_add_devices(chip-dev, 0, onkey_devs[0],
+ ARRAY_SIZE(onkey_devs),
onkey_resources[0],
+ chip-irq_base);
According to what I discussed with Mark in the
On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 03:27:13PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 04 July 2012, Qiao Zhou wrote:
On the other hand, I think it probably makes sense to drop the
irq_base member in this struct and rely on irq domains to allocate
them dynamically as mentioned before.
Do
