Am 12.06.2014 09:55, schrieb Linus Walleij:
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Michael Lawnick wrote:
Am 03.06.2014 13:18, schrieb Linus Walleij:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Michael Lawnick wrote:
Am 02.06.2014 14:16, schrieb Linus Walleij:
Is this really so useful on embedded systems?
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Michael Lawnick wrote:
> Am 03.06.2014 13:18, schrieb Linus Walleij:
>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Michael Lawnick wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 02.06.2014 14:16, schrieb Linus Walleij:
>>
>>
Is this really so useful on embedded systems?
I was under the imp
Am 03.06.2014 13:18, schrieb Linus Walleij:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Michael Lawnick wrote:
Am 02.06.2014 14:16, schrieb Linus Walleij:
Is this really so useful on embedded systems?
I was under the impression that this method was something used
on say PC desktops with temperature mon
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Michael Lawnick wrote:
> Am 02.06.2014 14:16, schrieb Linus Walleij:
>> Is this really so useful on embedded systems?
>>
>> I was under the impression that this method was something used
>> on say PC desktops with temperature monitors and EEPROMs
>> on some I2C lin
Am 02.06.2014 14:16, schrieb Linus Walleij:
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
Right, I read the function which provides the functionality, but my
point is; I don't think my patch changes the semantics in a way which
would adversely affect this option. If you think that it
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> Though, I wouldn't mind if compatible entries could be passed to the
> 'new_device' file, in addition to i2c_device_ids. Yet, this needs some
> extra handling I haven't found the time for, yet.
Hm that's a way forward then I guess... but pass
On Mon, 02 Jun 2014, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 02:16:59PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > >
> > >> Right, I read the function which provides the functionality, but my
> > >> point is; I don't think my patch changes the s
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 02:16:59PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> >
> >> Right, I read the function which provides the functionality, but my
> >> point is; I don't think my patch changes the semantics in a way which
> >> would adversely affect
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
>> Right, I read the function which provides the functionality, but my
>> point is; I don't think my patch changes the semantics in a way which
>> would adversely affect this option. If you think that it does, can you
>> specify how please?
>
> Right, I read the function which provides the functionality, but my
> point is; I don't think my patch changes the semantics in a way which
> would adversely affect this option. If you think that it does, can you
> specify how please?
Currently, if a driver would be DT only and does not provid
> > Would you mind telling me what I have changed that affects drivers
> > registering via Sysfs?
>
> Check Documentation/i2c/instantiating-devices, method 4. If a driver
> does not have i2c_device_id, then this method won't work because the
> newly created device has no of_node or ACPI_node and n
Hi Lee,
sorry for the delay.
> Would you mind telling me what I have changed that affects drivers
> registering via Sysfs?
Check Documentation/i2c/instantiating-devices, method 4. If a driver
does not have i2c_device_id, then this method won't work because the
newly created device has no of_node
> > 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 either DT
> > and/or ACPI
On Fri, 30 May 2014, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 01:26:36PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > 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 all
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 01:26:36PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> 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 aforemen
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 either DT
and/or ACPI match tables instea
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 either DT
and/or ACPI match tables instea
17 matches
Mail list logo
