On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 07:28:22 +0530, Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
First of all, thanks for explaining :)
On 6 December 2012 04:12, Grant Likely grant.lik...@secretlab.ca wrote:
On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 00:33:46 +0530, Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org
wrote:
This first tries
On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 08:06:20 +0530, Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
On 6 December 2012 04:12, Grant Likely grant.lik...@secretlab.ca wrote:
On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 00:33:46 +0530, Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org
wrote:
This first tries to match the table my patch added, _BUT_
But regardless, it is the responsiblity of the probe function to go and
look if of_driver_match_device() matches against anything if it cares
about the of_match_table entries (for instance, if there is extra data
attached).
Ok, so filling .data field in of_device_id[] is not required
On 6 December 2012 15:20, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
But regardless, it is the responsiblity of the probe function to go and
look if of_driver_match_device() matches against anything if it cares
about the of_match_table entries (for instance, if there is extra data
attached).
On Thu, 06 Dec 2012, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 6 December 2012 15:20, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
But regardless, it is the responsiblity of the probe function to go and
look if of_driver_match_device() matches against anything if it cares
about the of_match_table entries (for
On 6 December 2012 15:41, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
So then I'm back to my original question, why?
What is it used for? What difference does it make?
I could understand if the .data attribute was used in the driver
to make vital decisions based on STMPE version, but it's not. So
On Thu, 06 Dec 2012, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 6 December 2012 15:41, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
So then I'm back to my original question, why?
What is it used for? What difference does it make?
I could understand if the .data attribute was used in the driver
to make vital
On 6 December 2012 16:05, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
Or you could not put unnecessary bindings into the Device Tree
by putting two and two together and realise that using the table
is the correct thing to do instead. This actually gives reason
to you previous patch, but should
On Thu, 06 Dec 2012, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 6 December 2012 16:05, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
Or you could not put unnecessary bindings into the Device Tree
by putting two and two together and realise that using the table
is the correct thing to do instead. This actually
On 6 December 2012 16:42, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
I thought we'd be over this? The 'ID' will be represented by the
address of the chip i.e. stmpe1601@40, where '40' will be
distinguishing factor?
I haven't tested it but i thought we are getting i2c device name from
modalias() fn
On Thu, 06 Dec 2012, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 6 December 2012 16:42, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
I thought we'd be over this? The 'ID' will be represented by the
address of the chip i.e. stmpe1601@40, where '40' will be
distinguishing factor?
I haven't tested it but i thought we
Ping!!!
On 1 December 2012 00:33, Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
On 30 November 2012 21:15, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
But ... I don't see how the changes in the -i2c and -spi files
are of benefit either. When I boot without the ID table I still
get stmpe-i2c 0-0040:
Ping!!!
Documentation/development-process/2.Process:
- Avoid top-posting (the practice of putting your answer above the quoted
text you are responding to). It makes your response harder to read and
makes a poor impression.
:)
On 1 December 2012 00:33, Viresh Kumar
On 5 December 2012 18:49, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
Ping!!!
Documentation/development-process/2.Process:
- Avoid top-posting (the practice of putting your answer above the quoted
text you are responding to). It makes your response harder to read and
makes a poor impression.
On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 00:33:46 +0530, Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
On 30 November 2012 21:15, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
But ... I don't see how the changes in the -i2c and -spi files
are of benefit either. When I boot without the ID table I still
get stmpe-i2c
First of all, thanks for explaining :)
On 6 December 2012 04:12, Grant Likely grant.lik...@secretlab.ca wrote:
On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 00:33:46 +0530, Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org
wrote:
This first tries to match the table my patch added, _BUT_ the string will
never match as we had
On 6 December 2012 04:12, Grant Likely grant.lik...@secretlab.ca wrote:
On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 00:33:46 +0530, Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org
wrote:
This first tries to match the table my patch added, _BUT_ the string will
never match as we had st,stmpe810 in table and stmpe810 in dev.
Hi Viresh, Lee,
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 08:10:18PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
From: Vipul Kumar Samar vipulkumar.sa...@st.com
This patch extends existing DT support for stmpe devices. This updates:
- DT support from stmpe SPI and I2C drivers
- missing header files in stmpe.c
-
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
Hi Viresh, Lee,
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 08:10:18PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
From: Vipul Kumar Samar vipulkumar.sa...@st.com
This patch extends existing DT support for stmpe devices. This updates:
- DT support from stmpe SPI and I2C drivers
On 30 November 2012 18:15, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
The patch doesn't apply for me - does it for you?
Viresh, what's it based on?
Because this was applied 2 days back by Samuel, and i didn't
fetch it again yesterday:
commit 20d5c7defc228cdaeff3ce3442f3a4e86af293c1
Author: Randy
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 30 November 2012 18:15, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
The patch doesn't apply for me - does it for you?
Viresh, what's it based on?
Because this was applied 2 days back by Samuel, and i didn't
fetch it again yesterday:
commit
On Nov 30, 2012 6:50 PM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 30 November 2012 18:15, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
The patch doesn't apply for me - does it for you?
Viresh, what's it based on?
Because this was applied 2 days
On Fri, 30 Nov 2012, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
Hi Viresh, Lee,
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 08:10:18PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
From: Vipul Kumar Samar vipulkumar.sa...@st.com
This patch extends existing DT support for stmpe devices. This updates:
- DT support from stmpe SPI and I2C drivers
On 30 November 2012 21:15, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
But ... I don't see how the changes in the -i2c and -spi files
are of benefit either. When I boot without the ID table I still
get stmpe-i2c 0-0040: stmpe1601 detected, chip id: 0x212.
What is it that actually uses the IDs?
From: Vipul Kumar Samar vipulkumar.sa...@st.com
This patch extends existing DT support for stmpe devices. This updates:
- DT support from stmpe SPI and I2C drivers
- missing header files in stmpe.c
- stmpe_of_probe() with pwm, rotator and new bindings.
- Bindings are updated in binding document.
25 matches
Mail list logo
