Re: [RESEND PATCH v4 0/8] i2c: Relax mandatory I2C ID table passing

On Tue, 08 Mar 2016, Kieran Bingham wrote: > On 8 Mar 2016 11:22, "Lee Jones" wrote: > > > > On Mon, 12 Oct 2015, Kieran Bingham wrote: > > > > > Hi Wolfram, > > > > > > On 9 October 2015 at 22:16, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > > > > > > As said to Kieran

Re: [RESEND PATCH v4 0/8] i2c: Relax mandatory I2C ID table passing

On Tue, 08 Mar 2016, Kieran Bingham wrote: > On 8 Mar 2016 11:22, "Lee Jones" wrote: > > > > On Mon, 12 Oct 2015, Kieran Bingham wrote: > > > > > Hi Wolfram, > > > > > > On 9 October 2015 at 22:16, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > > > > > > As said to Kieran personally in Dublin, I want a verification

Re: [RESEND PATCH v4 0/8] i2c: Relax mandatory I2C ID table passing

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015, Kieran Bingham wrote: > Hi Wolfram, > > On 9 October 2015 at 22:16, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > > As said to Kieran personally in Dublin, I want a verification that all > > binding methods still work, especially runtime instantiation for drivers > >

Re: [RESEND PATCH v4 0/8] i2c: Relax mandatory I2C ID table passing

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015, Kieran Bingham wrote: > Hi Wolfram, > > On 9 October 2015 at 22:16, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > > As said to Kieran personally in Dublin, I want a verification that all > > binding methods still work, especially runtime instantiation for drivers > > without i2c_device_ids. >

Re: [RESEND PATCH v4 0/8] i2c: Relax mandatory I2C ID table passing

Hi Wolfram, On 9 October 2015 at 22:16, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > As said to Kieran personally in Dublin, I want a verification that all > binding methods still work, especially runtime instantiation for drivers > without i2c_device_ids. Ok, I should be able to find some time to look at that this

Re: [RESEND PATCH v4 0/8] i2c: Relax mandatory I2C ID table passing

Hi Wolfram, On 9 October 2015 at 22:16, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > As said to Kieran personally in Dublin, I want a verification that all > binding methods still work, especially runtime instantiation for drivers > without i2c_device_ids. Ok, I should be able to find some time

Re: [RESEND PATCH v4 0/8] i2c: Relax mandatory I2C ID table passing

As said to Kieran personally in Dublin, I want a verification that all binding methods still work, especially runtime instantiation for drivers without i2c_device_ids. Also, for the last patch, a verification should be done if the drivers i2c_device_id hasn't been used meanwhile. I'd also like to

Re: [RESEND PATCH v4 0/8] i2c: Relax mandatory I2C ID table passing

As said to Kieran personally in Dublin, I want a verification that all binding methods still work, especially runtime instantiation for drivers without i2c_device_ids. Also, for the last patch, a verification should be done if the drivers i2c_device_id hasn't been used meanwhile. I'd also like to

Re: [RESEND PATCH v4 0/8] i2c: Relax mandatory I2C ID table passing

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > > Yes but that is not true for drivers that support both OF and legacy board > > > files. For those drivers, there will be a lot of boiler plate code > > > duplicated > > > that would look something like: > > > > > > unsigned long data; > > >

Re: [RESEND PATCH v4 0/8] i2c: Relax mandatory I2C ID table passing

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > > Yes but that is not true for drivers that support both OF and legacy board > > > files. For those drivers, there will be a lot of boiler plate code > > > duplicated > > > that would look something like: > > > > > > unsigned long data; > > >

Re: [RESEND PATCH v4 0/8] i2c: Relax mandatory I2C ID table passing

Hi Wolfram, On 1 October 2015 at 21:50, Wolfram Sang wrote: > >> > Yes but that is not true for drivers that support both OF and legacy board >> > files. For those drivers, there will be a lot of boiler plate code >> > duplicated >> > that would look something like: >> > >> > unsigned long

Re: [RESEND PATCH v4 0/8] i2c: Relax mandatory I2C ID table passing

> > Yes but that is not true for drivers that support both OF and legacy board > > files. For those drivers, there will be a lot of boiler plate code > > duplicated > > that would look something like: > > > > unsigned long data; > > struct of_device_id *match; > > struct

Re: [RESEND PATCH v4 0/8] i2c: Relax mandatory I2C ID table passing

> > Yes but that is not true for drivers that support both OF and legacy board > > files. For those drivers, there will be a lot of boiler plate code > > duplicated > > that would look something like: > > > > unsigned long data; > > struct of_device_id *match; > > struct

Re: [RESEND PATCH v4 0/8] i2c: Relax mandatory I2C ID table passing

Hi Wolfram, On 1 October 2015 at 21:50, Wolfram Sang wrote: > >> > Yes but that is not true for drivers that support both OF and legacy board >> > files. For those drivers, there will be a lot of boiler plate code >> > duplicated >> > that would look something like: >> > >>

Re: [RESEND PATCH v4 0/8] i2c: Relax mandatory I2C ID table passing

Hello Lee, On 09/24/2015 06:58 PM, Lee Jones wrote: [snip] >> >>> Drivers will know if they either only supply an I2C or OF table, so >>> they will know which call to use in order to obtain their >> >> Yes but that is not true for drivers that support both OF and legacy board >> files. For

Re: [RESEND PATCH v4 0/8] i2c: Relax mandatory I2C ID table passing

On Thu, 24 Sep 2015, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > On 09/20/2015 06:15 AM, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Thu, 17 Sep 2015, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > > > >> Hello, > >> > >> On 09/11/2015 01:55 PM, Kieran Bingham wrote: > >>> Hi Wolfram, > >>> > >>> I have picked this patchset [0] up from

Re: [RESEND PATCH v4 0/8] i2c: Relax mandatory I2C ID table passing

Hello Lee, On 09/20/2015 06:15 AM, Lee Jones wrote: > On Thu, 17 Sep 2015, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> On 09/11/2015 01:55 PM, Kieran Bingham wrote: >>> Hi Wolfram, >>> >>> I have picked this patchset [0] up from Lee to rebase it, with an aim to >>> get this series moving

Re: [RESEND PATCH v4 0/8] i2c: Relax mandatory I2C ID table passing

Hello Lee, On 09/20/2015 06:15 AM, Lee Jones wrote: > On Thu, 17 Sep 2015, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> On 09/11/2015 01:55 PM, Kieran Bingham wrote: >>> Hi Wolfram, >>> >>> I have picked this patchset [0] up from Lee to rebase it, with an aim to >>> get this series moving

Re: [RESEND PATCH v4 0/8] i2c: Relax mandatory I2C ID table passing

Hello Lee, On 09/24/2015 06:58 PM, Lee Jones wrote: [snip] >> >>> Drivers will know if they either only supply an I2C or OF table, so >>> they will know which call to use in order to obtain their >> >> Yes but that is not true for drivers that support both OF and legacy board >> files. For

Re: [RESEND PATCH v4 0/8] i2c: Relax mandatory I2C ID table passing

On Thu, 24 Sep 2015, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > On 09/20/2015 06:15 AM, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Thu, 17 Sep 2015, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > > > >> Hello, > >> > >> On 09/11/2015 01:55 PM, Kieran Bingham wrote: > >>> Hi Wolfram, > >>> > >>> I have picked this patchset [0] up from

Re: [RESEND PATCH v4 0/8] i2c: Relax mandatory I2C ID table passing

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > Hello, > > On 09/11/2015 01:55 PM, Kieran Bingham wrote: > > Hi Wolfram, > > > > I have picked this patchset [0] up from Lee to rebase it, with an aim to > > get this series moving again. > > > > This resend fixes up my SoB's as

Re: [RESEND PATCH v4 0/8] i2c: Relax mandatory I2C ID table passing

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > Hello, > > On 09/11/2015 01:55 PM, Kieran Bingham wrote: > > Hi Wolfram, > > > > I have picked this patchset [0] up from Lee to rebase it, with an aim to > > get this series moving again. > > > > This resend fixes up my SoB's as

Re: [RESEND PATCH v4 0/8] i2c: Relax mandatory I2C ID table passing

Hello, On 09/11/2015 01:55 PM, Kieran Bingham wrote: > Hi Wolfram, > > I have picked this patchset [0] up from Lee to rebase it, with an aim to > get this series moving again. > > This resend fixes up my SoB's as highlighted by Lee > > A couple of minor issues were resolved in the rebase. As

Re: [RESEND PATCH v4 0/8] i2c: Relax mandatory I2C ID table passing

Hello, On 09/11/2015 01:55 PM, Kieran Bingham wrote: > Hi Wolfram, > > I have picked this patchset [0] up from Lee to rebase it, with an aim to > get this series moving again. > > This resend fixes up my SoB's as highlighted by Lee > > A couple of minor issues were resolved in the rebase. As

Re: [RESEND PATCH v4 0/8] i2c: Relax mandatory I2C ID table passing

On Fri, 11 Sep 2015, Kieran Bingham wrote: > Hi Wolfram, > > I have picked this patchset [0] up from Lee to rebase it, with an aim to > get this series moving again. > > This resend fixes up my SoB's as highlighted by Lee > > A couple of minor issues were resolved in the rebase. As it stood,

[RESEND PATCH v4 0/8] i2c: Relax mandatory I2C ID table passing

Hi Wolfram, I have picked this patchset [0] up from Lee to rebase it, with an aim to get this series moving again. This resend fixes up my SoB's as highlighted by Lee A couple of minor issues were resolved in the rebase. As it stood, Javier proposed [1] to merge this series, and use a follow up

Re: [RESEND PATCH v4 0/8] i2c: Relax mandatory I2C ID table passing

On Fri, 11 Sep 2015, Kieran Bingham wrote: > Hi Wolfram, > > I have picked this patchset [0] up from Lee to rebase it, with an aim to > get this series moving again. > > This resend fixes up my SoB's as highlighted by Lee > > A couple of minor issues were resolved in the rebase. As it stood,

[RESEND PATCH v4 0/8] i2c: Relax mandatory I2C ID table passing

Hi Wolfram, I have picked this patchset [0] up from Lee to rebase it, with an aim to get this series moving again. This resend fixes up my SoB's as highlighted by Lee A couple of minor issues were resolved in the rebase. As it stood, Javier proposed [1] to merge this series, and use a follow up