On 2018-01-29 18:38, Adrian Fiergolski wrote:
>>> On 22.01.2018 at 12:36, Peter Rosin wrote:
This series tries to check the I2C device id, but instead of open
coding the check in the pca954x driver, I have a new function in
the core doing the work.
The code is only compile-
On 27.01.2018 at 09:37, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2018-01-26 17:33, Adrian Fiergolski wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> Sorry for the late reply.
> No problem.
>
>> Yes, it's true I have one of the chip. However, my yocto based build system
>> depends on https://github.com/Xilinx/linux-xlnx and it's in versi
On 2018-01-26 17:33, Adrian Fiergolski wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> Sorry for the late reply.
No problem.
> Yes, it's true I have one of the chip. However, my yocto based build system
> depends on https://github.com/Xilinx/linux-xlnx and it's in version
> 4.9.0-xilinx-v2017.3.
> Apparently, there were
Hi Peter,
Sorry for the late reply.
Yes, it's true I have one of the chip. However, my yocto based build system
depends on https://github.com/Xilinx/linux-xlnx and it's in version
4.9.0-xilinx-v2017.3.
Apparently, there were some bigger changes in i2c core between this
version and
upstream, thus
Hi!
This series tries to check the I2C device id, but instead of open
coding the check in the pca954x driver, I have a new function in
the core doing the work.
The code is only compile-tested, hence the RFC, and I would really
like a Tested-by: tag from Adrian who presumably have one of these
chi
5 matches
Mail list logo
