Hi,
On Monday 25 of February 2013 00:16:49 Heiko Stübner wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 24. Februar 2013, 23:39:44 schrieb Linus Walleij:
> > On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Tomasz Figa
wrote:
> > >> > Note that we are talking here about a temporary solution. The
> > >> > legacy
> > >> > DT- based pin co
Am Sonntag, 24. Februar 2013, 23:39:44 schrieb Linus Walleij:
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> >> > Note that we are talking here about a temporary solution. The legacy
> >> > DT- based pin configuration will go away after all the DT-enabled
> >> > platforms using this drive
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>> > Note that we are talking here about a temporary solution. The legacy
>> > DT- based pin configuration will go away after all the DT-enabled
>> > platforms using this driver get migrated to pin control and so will
>> > the need to check if p
On Sunday 24 of February 2013 02:01:45 Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 1:58 AM, Tomasz Figa
wrote:
> > [Me]
> >
> >> Surely you know this when setting up the pdata from your machine?
> >
> > Cases 2) and 3) are both DT-enabled cases, where there is no pdata
> > coming from board-
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 1:58 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> [Me]
>> Surely you know this when setting up the pdata from your machine?
>
> Cases 2) and 3) are both DT-enabled cases, where there is no pdata coming
> from board-specific code.
(...)
> Note that we are talking here about a temporary solutio
On Sunday 24 of February 2013 01:47:49 Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 1:38 AM, Tomasz Figa
wrote:
> > The driver must know whether pin control is available, because it has
> > to fall back to legacy GPIO-based pin configuration if it is not.
> > This means that we must either chec
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 1:38 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> The driver must know whether pin control is available, because it has to
> fall back to legacy GPIO-based pin configuration if it is not. This means
> that we must either check for NULL (which probably is not right, since
> returned handle is
Hi Linus,
On Sunday 24 of February 2013 01:16:21 Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Heiko Stübner wrote:
> > When pinctrl is not built the fallback functions fail silently
> > and emit either 0 error codes or NULL pinctrl handles.
> >
> > Therefore it's needed to also check
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Heiko Stübner wrote:
> When pinctrl is not built the fallback functions fail silently
> and emit either 0 error codes or NULL pinctrl handles.
>
> Therefore it's needed to also check for this NULL-handle when
> falling back to parsing the i2c gpios from devicetree
When pinctrl is not built the fallback functions fail silently
and emit either 0 error codes or NULL pinctrl handles.
Therefore it's needed to also check for this NULL-handle when
falling back to parsing the i2c gpios from devicetree.
Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner
---
drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-s3c
10 matches
Mail list logo