> I think the quirks can describe our HW limitation without issue.
> We are porting our i2c driver base on that. Will let you know the test
> result.
Great news, thanks for the update :)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, 2015-01-13 at 10:57 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 02:37:53PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> >
> > > We've started upstream work for MT8173[1].
> > >
> > > We've fixed these issues for new SoC, and we believe it is fully I2C
> > > compatible now. We'll add mt8173
On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 02:37:53PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
> > We've started upstream work for MT8173[1].
> >
> > We've fixed these issues for new SoC, and we believe it is fully I2C
> > compatible now. We'll add mt8173 support to this driver, so this driver
> > will support both fully I2C
On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 02:37:53PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
We've started upstream work for MT8173[1].
We've fixed these issues for new SoC, and we believe it is fully I2C
compatible now. We'll add mt8173 support to this driver, so this driver
will support both fully I2C compatible
On Tue, 2015-01-13 at 10:57 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 02:37:53PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
We've started upstream work for MT8173[1].
We've fixed these issues for new SoC, and we believe it is fully I2C
compatible now. We'll add mt8173 support to this
I think the quirks can describe our HW limitation without issue.
We are porting our i2c driver base on that. Will let you know the test
result.
Great news, thanks for the update :)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
> We've started upstream work for MT8173[1].
>
> We've fixed these issues for new SoC, and we believe it is fully I2C
> compatible now. We'll add mt8173 support to this driver, so this driver
> will support both fully I2C compatible SoC and the current one.
From what you tell, I'd rather add
We've started upstream work for MT8173[1].
We've fixed these issues for new SoC, and we believe it is fully I2C
compatible now. We'll add mt8173 support to this driver, so this driver
will support both fully I2C compatible SoC and the current one.
From what you tell, I'd rather add the
On Thu, 2014-11-27 at 17:45 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > > I think there are now 3 drivers in my queue which are not fully I2C
> > > compatible but more supporting the very minimum to, say, read an eeprom.
> > > I am not feeling well to allow them to use I2C_FUNC_I2C. So, I want to
> > > think
On Thu, 2014-11-27 at 17:45 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
I think there are now 3 drivers in my queue which are not fully I2C
compatible but more supporting the very minimum to, say, read an eeprom.
I am not feeling well to allow them to use I2C_FUNC_I2C. So, I want to
think about ways
> > I think there are now 3 drivers in my queue which are not fully I2C
> > compatible but more supporting the very minimum to, say, read an eeprom.
> > I am not feeling well to allow them to use I2C_FUNC_I2C. So, I want to
> > think about ways how to communicate deficiencies like "only 255 byte"
Hi,
On Mon, 2014-11-24 at 13:15 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> Hi,
>
> some very high level remarks:
>
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 05:38:46PM +0800, Xudong Chen wrote:
> > This series is the third version of Mediatek SoCs I2C controller common
> > bus driver.
> > Compared to the second version,
>
Hi,
On Mon, 2014-11-24 at 13:15 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
Hi,
some very high level remarks:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 05:38:46PM +0800, Xudong Chen wrote:
This series is the third version of Mediatek SoCs I2C controller common
bus driver.
Compared to the second version,
1. Add
I think there are now 3 drivers in my queue which are not fully I2C
compatible but more supporting the very minimum to, say, read an eeprom.
I am not feeling well to allow them to use I2C_FUNC_I2C. So, I want to
think about ways how to communicate deficiencies like only 255 byte or
only
Hi,
some very high level remarks:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 05:38:46PM +0800, Xudong Chen wrote:
> This series is the third version of Mediatek SoCs I2C controller common
> bus driver.
> Compared to the second version,
> 1. Add comments for clock in dt-bindings file i2c-mt6577.txt.
> 2. Remove
This series is the third version of Mediatek SoCs I2C controller common
bus driver.
Compared to the second version,
1. Add comments for clock in dt-bindings file i2c-mt6577.txt.
2. Remove mt8135.dtsi because of the dependency on pinctrl and clock.
3. Encode the feature have-dcm in i2c-mt65xx.c by
This series is the third version of Mediatek SoCs I2C controller common
bus driver.
Compared to the second version,
1. Add comments for clock in dt-bindings file i2c-mt6577.txt.
2. Remove mt8135.dtsi because of the dependency on pinctrl and clock.
3. Encode the feature have-dcm in i2c-mt65xx.c by
Hi,
some very high level remarks:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 05:38:46PM +0800, Xudong Chen wrote:
This series is the third version of Mediatek SoCs I2C controller common
bus driver.
Compared to the second version,
1. Add comments for clock in dt-bindings file i2c-mt6577.txt.
2. Remove
18 matches
Mail list logo
