On 28/04/16 15:19, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> On 04/28/2016 03:30 PM, Peter Meerwald-Stadler wrote:
>>
It's clearly wrong. But the problem is there might be an application that
depends on the wrong behavior, the driver has been around for 2.5 years. So
it's difficult to fix. We migh
On 04/28/2016 03:24 PM, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
>> It's clearly wrong. But the problem is there might be an application that
>> depends on the wrong behavior, the driver has been around for 2.5 years. So
>> it's difficult to fix. We might just go ahead in this case and take the
>> chance that no
On 04/28/2016 03:30 PM, Peter Meerwald-Stadler wrote:
>
>>> It's clearly wrong. But the problem is there might be an application that
>>> depends on the wrong behavior, the driver has been around for 2.5 years. So
>>> it's difficult to fix. We might just go ahead in this case and take the
>>> chan
> > It's clearly wrong. But the problem is there might be an application that
> > depends on the wrong behavior, the driver has been around for 2.5 years. So
> > it's difficult to fix. We might just go ahead in this case and take the
> > chance that nobody will complain. But if somebody complains
> It's clearly wrong. But the problem is there might be an application that
> depends on the wrong behavior, the driver has been around for 2.5 years. So
> it's difficult to fix. We might just go ahead in this case and take the
> chance that nobody will complain. But if somebody complains this will
On 04/27/2016 06:58 PM, Crestez Dan Leonard wrote:
> On 04/26/2016 06:21 PM, Daniel Baluta wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Yong Li wrote:
>>> I am thinking if there is any application is using this incorrect
>>> name, the application should be fix too
>>
>> The rule is: "Don't break the
On 04/26/2016 06:21 PM, Daniel Baluta wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Yong Li wrote:
>> I am thinking if there is any application is using this incorrect
>> name, the application should be fix too
>
> The rule is: "Don't break the userspace ABI". So, if we got this wrong
> from the begi
Thanks for your mails. Is it possible to just merge this patch, then
test if there is any application is using it? Considering almost all
other I2C devices are using the correct ID name, it should be low
risky
Yong
2016-04-26 23:21 GMT+08:00 Daniel Baluta :
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Yon
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Yong Li wrote:
> I am thinking if there is any application is using this incorrect
> name, the application should be fix too
The rule is: "Don't break the userspace ABI". So, if we got this wrong
from the beginning we are stuck with this name.
The only thing that
I am thinking if there is any application is using this incorrect
name, the application should be fix too
Thanks,
Yong
2016-04-26 20:01 GMT+08:00 Lars-Peter Clausen :
> On 04/26/2016 01:47 PM, Yong Li wrote:
>> Thanks for your mails. Just FYI, we are testing this tmp006 sensor on
>> our system. an
On 04/26/2016 01:47 PM, Yong Li wrote:
> Thanks for your mails. Just FYI, we are testing this tmp006 sensor on
> our system. and our application framework is using these device names,
> so I submitted this patch.
Your patch is certainly correct. But the problem is, or rather the question
is, will
Thanks for your mails. Just FYI, we are testing this tmp006 sensor on
our system. and our application framework is using these device names,
so I submitted this patch.
Yong
2016-04-26 18:57 GMT+08:00 Lars-Peter Clausen :
> On 04/25/2016 11:11 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>> On 25/04/16 21:59, Cres
On 04/25/2016 11:11 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On 25/04/16 21:59, Crestez Dan Leonard wrote:
>> On 04/25/2016 10:33 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>>> On 22/04/16 04:43, Yong Li wrote:
When load the driver using the below command:
echo tmp006 0x40 > /sys/bus/i2c/devices/i2c-0/new_device
>
On 25/04/16 21:59, Crestez Dan Leonard wrote:
> On 04/25/2016 10:33 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>> On 22/04/16 04:43, Yong Li wrote:
>>> When load the driver using the below command:
>>> echo tmp006 0x40 > /sys/bus/i2c/devices/i2c-0/new_device
>>>
>>> In sysfs, the i2c name is tmp006, however the i
On 04/25/2016 10:33 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
On 22/04/16 04:43, Yong Li wrote:
When load the driver using the below command:
echo tmp006 0x40 > /sys/bus/i2c/devices/i2c-0/new_device
In sysfs, the i2c name is tmp006, however the iio name is 0-0040,
they are inconsistent. With this patch,
the
On 22/04/16 04:43, Yong Li wrote:
> When load the driver using the below command:
> echo tmp006 0x40 > /sys/bus/i2c/devices/i2c-0/new_device
>
> In sysfs, the i2c name is tmp006, however the iio name is 0-0040,
> they are inconsistent. With this patch,
> the iio name will be the same as the i2c de
When load the driver using the below command:
echo tmp006 0x40 > /sys/bus/i2c/devices/i2c-0/new_device
In sysfs, the i2c name is tmp006, however the iio name is 0-0040,
they are inconsistent. With this patch,
the iio name will be the same as the i2c device name
Signed-off-by: Yong Li
---
driver
17 matches
Mail list logo
