Hi Patrick,
On 31/5/23 18:34, Patrick Venture wrote:
On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 2:40 PM Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
<phi...@linaro.org <mailto:phi...@linaro.org>> wrote:
On 22/3/23 22:19, Corey Minyard wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 10:21:36AM -0700, Patrick Venture wrote:
>> This allows the devices to be more readily found and specified.
>> Without setting the name field, they can only be found by device
type
>> name, which doesn't let you specify the second of the same
device type
>> behind a bus.
>>
>> Tested: Verified that by default the device was findable with
the name
>> 'pca954x[77]', for an instance attached at that address.
>
> This looks good to me.
>
> Acked-by: Corey Minyard <cminy...@mvista.com
<mailto:cminy...@mvista.com>>
>
> if you are taking this in through another tree. Or do you want me to
> take this?
Since I have to send a MIPS PR, I'll take this one;
to alleviate you and the CI minutes.
I don't see this patch yet, did it got lost in the shuffle?
I quickly tried to test the patch before sending the PR and it was not
working, so I dropped it; but since it was a busy day I neglected to
post an update on the list. I apologize for that.
Revisiting the patch, the problem is trivial, a simple typo:
+static Property pca954x_props[] = {
+ DEFINE_PROP_STRING("nane", Pca954xState, name),
^^^^
+ DEFINE_PROP_END_OF_LIST()
+};
I'm queuing this patch again with s/nane/name/.
Regards,
Phil.
