On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 02:15:05PM +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
> This email address is going to expire soon so update it.
You'll want to send this to the "trivial changes" git tree by Jiri Kosina
> Signed-off-by: Jarkko Nikula
> ---
> arch/arm/plat-omap/i2c.c |2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 ins
On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 02:51:03PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 02:17:23PM +0300, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > * Riku Voipio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [081006 14:09]:
> > > On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 12:11:31PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > > Th
On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 12:11:31PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> This driver should be sitting together with the other
> led drivers.
But this driver actually doesn't implement the led sysfs interface.
If the driver is changed to implement the led framework interface,
we break the existing n810 use
On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 04:05:04PM +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
> - TSL2563 and LP5521 are found only in N810
> - Fix one typo
> Signed-off-by: Jarkko Nikula <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Acked-by: Riku voipio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ---
> arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-n800.c | 1
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 03:16:29PM -0500, Woodruff, Richard wrote:
> Checkpatch.pl is just a guide. Completely changing code for the tool isn't
> probably a good idea. It might even get you severally flamed on LKML :) The
> recent threads are informative (ok to read, bad to be in).
> Incidenta
On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 09:56:31AM -0500, Ramirez Luna, Omar wrote:
> Renaming CFG_GetC55Procs function for a more proper name (CFG_GetDSPProcs)
> and removed redundant initialization statements.
Why does this function need to exist in the first place? The only place
this is ever going to be used
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 08:30:26AM -0700, Emanoil Kotsev wrote:
> I think everything is getting pretty messy recently - I was pretty satisfied
> with 2.6.20 and then tried 2.6.24. In fact I can not compile 2.6.20 right now
> because after an upgrade debian testing comes with gcc-4.3 that has a
>
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 09:53:43PM +0530, Gadiyar, Anand wrote:
> Besides, the MUSB code hasn't really changed that much in this time.
Even if that was true (which, according to Felippe's answer isn't),
the USB subsystem itself has changed quite a bit since.
> Do you really think the problem will
m 1e9d7271505e85c99fe9b46653569ff6216e07b3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Riku Voipio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:29:31 +0300
Subject: [PATCH] Separate i2c_board_info for n800 and n810
n800 and n810 have different peripherals on the second i2c bus
(tea5761 on n800 and lm832
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 07:52:44AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:47:43 +0300, Riku Voipio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hmm. I think it would be better to avoid calling the probe
> > in first place. git diff made the attached patch look more
> &
0be01e0456f98bf13ebb954bc6c3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Riku Voipio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:29:31 +0300
Subject: [PATCH] Separate i2c_board_info for n800 and n810
n800 and n810 have different peripherals, on the second i2c bus
(tea5761 on n800 and lm8323 on n810). Thus
11 matches
Mail list logo
