Jerome Brunet writes:
> The initial goal of this series was move to TEST_N pin from the EE
> controller to AO controller, where it belongs. This meant modify the
> EE_OFF value.
>
> This offset is a quirk we brought from the vendor driver when it was
> initially merged. There no reason to keep th
Jerome Brunet writes:
> The initial goal of this series was move to TEST_N pin from the EE
> controller to AO controller, where it belongs. This meant modify the
> EE_OFF value.
>
> This offset is a quirk we brought from the vendor driver when it was
> initially merged. There no reason to keep th
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Jerome Brunet wrote:
> After doing this rework, I noticed that this driver (not the only one though)
> assume gpio offset (param of gpio calls) and pin offset are the same thing ...
> instead of relying pinctrl (and gpio-ranges) to do the translation.
Hm yeah I g
On Thu, 2017-09-21 at 14:21 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Jerome Brunet wrote:
>
> > The initial goal of this series was move to TEST_N pin from the EE
> > controller to AO controller, where it belongs. This meant modify the
> > EE_OFF value.
> >
> > This offset
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Jerome Brunet wrote:
> The initial goal of this series was move to TEST_N pin from the EE
> controller to AO controller, where it belongs. This meant modify the
> EE_OFF value.
>
> This offset is a quirk we brought from the vendor driver when it was
> initially me
The initial goal of this series was move to TEST_N pin from the EE
controller to AO controller, where it belongs. This meant modify the
EE_OFF value.
This offset is a quirk we brought from the vendor driver when it was
initially merged. There no reason to keep this around and we could simply
let p
6 matches
Mail list logo
