On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 12:35 AM, Lee Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 03 Jun 2013, Bryan Wu wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:18 AM, Lee Jones <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Fri, 31 May 2013, Bryan Wu wrote: >> > >> >> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 1:12 AM, Linus Walleij >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > From: Linus Walleij <[email protected]> >> >> > >> >> > Based on pending device tree support in the LP55xx drivers >> >> > we can add the correct LED and channel configuration from the >> >> > ux500 device tree for all HREF variants. >> >> > >> >> > Cc: Milo Kim <[email protected]> >> >> > Cc: Bryan Wu <[email protected]> >> >> > Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <[email protected]> >> >> > --- >> >> > arch/arm/boot/dts/href.dtsi | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ >> >> > 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> > >> >> > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/href.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/href.dtsi >> >> > index 62523f6..e315429 100644 >> >> > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/href.dtsi >> >> > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/href.dtsi >> >> > @@ -63,16 +63,42 @@ >> >> > }; >> >> > >> >> > i2c@80128000 { >> >> > - lp5521@0x33 { >> >> > - compatible = "lp5521"; >> >> > + lp5521@33 { >> >> >> >> Is this right, I guess it should be still "lp5521@0x33", although it's >> >> just a name. >> > >> > What makes you say that Bryan? >> > >> > All other nodes drop the '0x', as it's implied. >> > >> >> But I still got this in this patch >> " bh1780@0x29 {" >> >> which is not changed. So which one should be the right? > > The one without the '0x' is correct. > > If there are any of these left over that Linus hasn't fixed yet, I'm > happy to fix.
Sure, no problem. I just found this inconsistence confused me. Thanks, -Bryan _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
