On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> An earlier change prevented User Interface Boards (UIBs) from being
> initialised on boards which did not support them. This change had
> the undesired effect of reordering the UIB initialisation calls with
> I2C registration. Here we ensure
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
An earlier change prevented User Interface Boards (UIBs) from being
initialised on boards which did not support them. This change had
the undesired effect of reordering the UIB initialisation calls with
I2C registration.
On Tuesday 25 September 2012, Lee Jones wrote:
>
> An earlier change prevented User Interface Boards (UIBs) from being
> initialised on boards which did not support them. This change had
> the undesired effect of reordering the UIB initialisation calls with
> I2C registration. Here we ensure UIBs
An earlier change prevented User Interface Boards (UIBs) from being
initialised on boards which did not support them. This change had
the undesired effect of reordering the UIB initialisation calls with
I2C registration. Here we ensure UIBs are only setup after all
required infrastructure is
An earlier change prevented User Interface Boards (UIBs) from being
initialised on boards which did not support them. This change had
the undesired effect of reordering the UIB initialisation calls with
I2C registration. Here we ensure UIBs are only setup after all
required infrastructure is
On Tuesday 25 September 2012, Lee Jones wrote:
An earlier change prevented User Interface Boards (UIBs) from being
initialised on boards which did not support them. This change had
the undesired effect of reordering the UIB initialisation calls with
I2C registration. Here we ensure UIBs are
6 matches
Mail list logo