On Fri, 14 Feb 2014, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> >> >> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1645251
> >> >>
> >> >> Step 2 did not happen. I did not get any review for my change. I
> >> >> literally submitted that within a couple of hours
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
>> >> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1645251
>> >>
>> >> Step 2 did not happen. I did not get any review for my change. I
>> >> literally submitted that within a couple of hours after the request.
>> >>
>> >> Could you please tell me
> -static int max6650_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> -const struct i2c_device_id *id);
> -static int max6650_init_client(struct i2c_client *client);
> -static int max6650_remove(struct i2c_client *client);
> +static int
> >> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1645251
> >>
> >> Step 2 did not happen. I did not get any review for my change. I
> >> literally submitted that within a couple of hours after the request.
> >>
> >> Could you please tell me what was wrong with that change, and why I
> >> did not
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1645251
Step 2 did not happen. I did not get any review for my change. I
literally submitted that within a couple of hours after the request.
Could you please tell me what was wrong with that change, and why I
did not get any respect not
-static int max6650_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
-const struct i2c_device_id *id);
-static int max6650_init_client(struct i2c_client *client);
-static int max6650_remove(struct i2c_client *client);
+static int max6650_probe(struct platform_device *pdev);
+static
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1645251
Step 2 did not happen. I did not get any review for my change. I
literally submitted that within a couple of hours after the request.
Could you please tell me
On Fri, 14 Feb 2014, Laszlo Papp wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1645251
Step 2 did not happen. I did not get any review for my change. I
literally submitted that within a couple of hours after
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1645251
>>
>> Step 2 did not happen. I did not get any review for my change. I
>> literally submitted that within a couple of hours after the request.
>>
>> Could you please tell me what was wrong
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 02/13/2014 04:27 AM, Laszlo Papp wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
-static int max6650_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
-const struct i2c_device_id *id);
On 02/13/2014 03:58 AM, Jean Delvare wrote:
Hi Lee,
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:16:07 +, Lee Jones wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Jean Delvare wrote:
Guenter just did:
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/2014-February/041224.html
Nice, FWIW:
Acked-by: Lee Jones
Any change to
On 02/13/2014 04:27 AM, Laszlo Papp wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
-static int max6650_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
-const struct i2c_device_id *id);
-static int max6650_init_client(struct i2c_client *client);
-static int max6650_remove(struct
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Laszlo,
>
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:27:28 +, Laszlo Papp wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
>> > Right, I've had enough. I'm removing your patch from the MFD tree.
>> >
>> > I've asked too many people to give
Hi Laszlo,
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:27:28 +, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> > Right, I've had enough. I'm removing your patch from the MFD tree.
> >
> > I've asked too many people to give you a second chance and asked you
> > privately to behave
> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1645251
>
> Step 2 did not happen. I did not get any review for my change. I
> literally submitted that within a couple of hours after the request.
>
> Could you please tell me what was wrong with that change, and why I
> did not get any respect not
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
>> >>> > -static int max6650_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>> >>> > -const struct i2c_device_id *id);
>> >>> > -static int max6650_init_client(struct i2c_client *client);
>> >>> > -static int max6650_remove(struct
Hi Lee,
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:16:07 +, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > Guenter just did:
> >
> > http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/2014-February/041224.html
>
> Nice, FWIW:
> Acked-by: Lee Jones
>
> > Any change to the max6650 driver
> >>> > -static int max6650_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> >>> > -const struct i2c_device_id *id);
> >>> > -static int max6650_init_client(struct i2c_client *client);
> >>> > -static int max6650_remove(struct i2c_client *client);
> >>> > +static int max6650_probe(struct
I will try hard to concentrate on the technical and fruitful stuff in
the reply...
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Laszlo,
>
> Le Thursday 13 February 2014 à 10:46 +, Laszlo Papp a écrit :
>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Laszlo Papp wrote:
>> > On Thu, Feb
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:58:17 +, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > The MFD driver has now been added, so this driver is now being adopted to
> > > be a
> > > subdevice driver on top of it. This means, the i2c driver usage is being
> > > converted to platform
Hi Laszlo,
Le Thursday 13 February 2014 à 10:46 +, Laszlo Papp a écrit :
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Jean Delvare wrote:
> >> Any change to the max6650 driver should go on top of his patch series
> >> to avoid conflicts:
> >>
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Jean Delvare wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:58:17 +, Lee Jones wrote:
>>> > The MFD driver has now been added, so this driver is now being adopted to
>>> > be a
>>> > subdevice driver on top of it.
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:58:17 +, Lee Jones wrote:
>> > The MFD driver has now been added, so this driver is now being adopted to
>> > be a
>> > subdevice driver on top of it. This means, the i2c driver usage is being
>> > converted to
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:58:17 +, Lee Jones wrote:
> > The MFD driver has now been added, so this driver is now being adopted to
> > be a
> > subdevice driver on top of it. This means, the i2c driver usage is being
> > converted to platform driver usage all around.
> >
> > Signed-off-by:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:58:17 +, Lee Jones wrote:
The MFD driver has now been added, so this driver is now being adopted to
be a
subdevice driver on top of it. This means, the i2c driver usage is being
converted to platform driver usage all around.
Signed-off-by: Laszlo Papp
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Jean Delvare jdelv...@suse.de wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:58:17 +, Lee Jones wrote:
The MFD driver has now been added, so this driver is now being adopted to
be a
subdevice driver on top of it. This means, the i2c driver usage is being
converted to
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Laszlo Papp lp...@kde.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Jean Delvare jdelv...@suse.de wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:58:17 +, Lee Jones wrote:
The MFD driver has now been added, so this driver is now being adopted to
be a
subdevice driver on
Hi Laszlo,
Le Thursday 13 February 2014 à 10:46 +, Laszlo Papp a écrit :
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Laszlo Papp lp...@kde.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Jean Delvare jdelv...@suse.de wrote:
Any change to the max6650 driver should go on top of his patch series
to
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Jean Delvare wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:58:17 +, Lee Jones wrote:
The MFD driver has now been added, so this driver is now being adopted to
be a
subdevice driver on top of it. This means, the i2c driver usage is being
converted to platform driver usage
I will try hard to concentrate on the technical and fruitful stuff in
the reply...
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Jean Delvare jdelv...@suse.de wrote:
Hi Laszlo,
Le Thursday 13 February 2014 à 10:46 +, Laszlo Papp a écrit :
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Laszlo Papp lp...@kde.org
-static int max6650_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
-const struct i2c_device_id *id);
-static int max6650_init_client(struct i2c_client *client);
-static int max6650_remove(struct i2c_client *client);
+static int max6650_probe(struct platform_device *pdev);
Hi Lee,
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:16:07 +, Lee Jones wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Jean Delvare wrote:
Guenter just did:
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/2014-February/041224.html
Nice, FWIW:
Acked-by: Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org
Any change to the max6650
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
-static int max6650_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
-const struct i2c_device_id *id);
-static int max6650_init_client(struct i2c_client *client);
-static int max6650_remove(struct i2c_client
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1645251
Step 2 did not happen. I did not get any review for my change. I
literally submitted that within a couple of hours after the request.
Could you please tell me what was wrong with that change, and why I
did not get any respect not to
Hi Laszlo,
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:27:28 +, Laszlo Papp wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
Right, I've had enough. I'm removing your patch from the MFD tree.
I've asked too many people to give you a second chance and asked you
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Jean Delvare jdelv...@suse.de wrote:
Hi Laszlo,
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:27:28 +, Laszlo Papp wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
Right, I've had enough. I'm removing your patch from the MFD tree.
I've asked
On 02/13/2014 04:27 AM, Laszlo Papp wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
-static int max6650_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
-const struct i2c_device_id *id);
-static int max6650_init_client(struct i2c_client *client);
-static int
On 02/13/2014 03:58 AM, Jean Delvare wrote:
Hi Lee,
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:16:07 +, Lee Jones wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Jean Delvare wrote:
Guenter just did:
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/2014-February/041224.html
Nice, FWIW:
Acked-by: Lee Jones
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net wrote:
On 02/13/2014 04:27 AM, Laszlo Papp wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
-static int max6650_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
-const struct i2c_device_id
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1645251
Step 2 did not happen. I did not get any review for my change. I
literally submitted that within a couple of hours after the request.
Could you please tell me what was
40 matches
Mail list logo
