On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 10:16:44AM -0700, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 09:50:05AM +, NeilBrown wrote:
> > + - label: name for connector. If not given, device name is used.
> Are extcon devices ever used standalone? If so, why?
They are sometimes used for things that don't
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 10:16:44AM -0700, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 09:50:05AM +, NeilBrown wrote:
+ - label: name for connector. If not given, device name is used.
Are extcon devices ever used standalone? If so, why?
They are sometimes used for things that don't
On 11/01/2013 04:33 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
On Fri, 1 Nov 2013 10:16:44 -0700 Mark Rutland wrote:
Hi Neil,
While I'm not fundamentally opposed to this binding, I have some issues with
its current form and would not want to see this version hit mainline.
Thanks for the review.
On Fri, Nov
On 11/01/2013 04:33 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
On Fri, 1 Nov 2013 10:16:44 -0700 Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
Hi Neil,
While I'm not fundamentally opposed to this binding, I have some issues with
its current form and would not want to see this version hit mainline.
Thanks for the
On Sat, 2 Nov 2013 10:33:23 +1100 NeilBrown wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Nov 2013 10:16:44 -0700 Mark Rutland wrote:
>
> > Hi Neil,
> >
> > While I'm not fundamentally opposed to this binding, I have some issues with
> > its current form and would not want to see this version hit mainline.
> >
>
>
On Sat, 2 Nov 2013 10:33:23 +1100 NeilBrown ne...@suse.de wrote:
On Fri, 1 Nov 2013 10:16:44 -0700 Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
Hi Neil,
While I'm not fundamentally opposed to this binding, I have some issues with
its current form and would not want to see this version hit
On Fri, 1 Nov 2013 10:16:44 -0700 Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi Neil,
>
> While I'm not fundamentally opposed to this binding, I have some issues with
> its current form and would not want to see this version hit mainline.
>
Thanks for the review.
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 09:50:05AM +,
Hi Neil,
While I'm not fundamentally opposed to this binding, I have some issues with
its current form and would not want to see this version hit mainline.
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 09:50:05AM +, NeilBrown wrote:
>
> As this device is not vendor specific, I haven't included any "vendor,"
>
As this device is not vendor specific, I haven't included any "vendor,"
prefixes. For my model I used "regulator-gpio" which takes a similar
approach.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/extcon/extcon-gpio.txt
As this device is not vendor specific, I haven't included any vendor,
prefixes. For my model I used regulator-gpio which takes a similar
approach.
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown ne...@suse.de
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/extcon/extcon-gpio.txt
Hi Neil,
While I'm not fundamentally opposed to this binding, I have some issues with
its current form and would not want to see this version hit mainline.
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 09:50:05AM +, NeilBrown wrote:
As this device is not vendor specific, I haven't included any vendor,
On Fri, 1 Nov 2013 10:16:44 -0700 Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
Hi Neil,
While I'm not fundamentally opposed to this binding, I have some issues with
its current form and would not want to see this version hit mainline.
Thanks for the review.
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at
12 matches
Mail list logo