On (20/08/26 17:34), Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > Oh, sure, will do. Is that OK if I'll base my patch on linux-next?
> > I'm also going to test the patch on more devices here on my side.
>
> Today's one includes above mentioned patches, I think it's okay.
Right, just noticed that as well. Thanks.
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 11:18:10PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (20/08/26 13:23), Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 01:54:26PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 07:38:07PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > > On (20/08/26 19:24), Sergey Senozhats
On (20/08/26 13:23), Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 01:54:26PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 07:38:07PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > On (20/08/26 19:24), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > > > But then the question is why we have this code in the ->
Hi Sergey,
I love your patch! Perhaps something to improve:
[auto build test WARNING on v5.9-rc2]
[cannot apply to wsa/i2c/for-next next-20200826]
[If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
https:/
Hi Sergey,
I love your patch! Yet something to improve:
[auto build test ERROR on v5.9-rc2]
[cannot apply to wsa/i2c/for-next next-20200826]
[If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
https://git-s
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 01:54:26PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 07:38:07PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > On (20/08/26 19:24), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > > But then the question is why we have this code in the ->probe() at all?
> > > > ->match() is run before p
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 07:38:07PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (20/08/26 19:24), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > But then the question is why we have this code in the ->probe() at all?
> > > ->match() is run before probe by bus core, no?
> >
> > That's a good question.
>
> Everything se
On (20/08/26 19:24), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > But then the question is why we have this code in the ->probe() at all?
> > ->match() is run before probe by bus core, no?
>
> That's a good question.
Everything seem to be working OK on my test board with this patch:
---
diff --git a/drivers/i
On (20/08/26 12:56), Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > You probably meant simply:
> >
> > if (!i2c_device_match(dev, dev->driver)) {
> >
> > > status = -ENODEV;
> > > goto put_sync_adapter;
> > > }
> >
> > On the first glance it will work the same way but sli
On (20/08/26 12:53), Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 02:25:44PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > On (20/08/26 07:08), Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 01:29:37PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
[..]
> > > > i2c_of_match_device() depends on CONFIG_OF and, thus
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 12:53:56PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 02:25:44PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > On (20/08/26 07:08), Wolfram Sang wrote:
...
> You probably meant simply:
>
> if (!i2c_device_match(dev, dev->driver)) {
>
> > status
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 02:25:44PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (20/08/26 07:08), Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 01:29:37PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > Unlike acpi_match_device(), acpi_driver_match_device() does
> > > consider devices that provide of_match_table
Hi Sergey,
I love your patch! Yet something to improve:
[auto build test ERROR on v5.9-rc2]
[also build test ERROR on next-20200825]
[cannot apply to wsa/i2c/for-next]
[If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as
On (20/08/26 07:08), Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 01:29:37PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > Unlike acpi_match_device(), acpi_driver_match_device() does
> > consider devices that provide of_match_table and performs
> > of_compatible() matching for such devices. The key point h
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 01:29:37PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Unlike acpi_match_device(), acpi_driver_match_device() does
> consider devices that provide of_match_table and performs
> of_compatible() matching for such devices. The key point here is
> that ACPI of_compatible() matching - acp
On (20/08/26 13:29), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Unlike acpi_match_device(), acpi_driver_match_device() does
> consider devices that provide of_match_table and performs
> of_compatible() matching for such devices. The key point here is
> that ACPI of_compatible() matching - acpi_of_match_device() -
16 matches
Mail list logo
