Jean Delvare wrote: > I have already tested the latter, using i2c-stub + a dump of a F75375S > chip. So if you can test the former (new-style) we cover the whole set > of possibilities and that's alright :) > > Thanks, > I failed to get the patchset against Linux 2.6.26-rc5, and didn't have time to fight:
> patch -p1 --dry-run < ../p2/\[PATCH_1_4\]_i2c__Introduce_i2c_listeners.txt patching file include/linux/i2c.h Hunk #2 succeeded at 94 (offset 1 line). Hunk #3 succeeded at 185 (offset 1 line). Hunk #4 succeeded at 203 (offset 1 line). patching file drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c Hunk #1 succeeded at 43 (offset 1 line). Hunk #2 succeeded at 432 (offset 6 lines). Hunk #3 succeeded at 463 (offset 6 lines). Hunk #4 FAILED at 598. Hunk #5 succeeded at 612 (offset 7 lines). Hunk #6 succeeded at 796 (offset 12 lines). Hunk #7 succeeded at 1240 (offset -35 lines). 1 out of 7 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c.rej However, none of the functions you touched are used in F75375S driver with new-style loading path, so it would seem fine for me. _______________________________________________ i2c mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c
