On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 02:49:28PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
Hi Wolfram,
On Thursday 18 December 2014 09:21:51 Wolfram Sang wrote:
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 04:15:23AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
The I2C subsystem can match devices without explicit OF support based on
the part of
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Wolfram Sang w...@the-dreams.de wrote:
There are three compatible strings defined for the ADXL345 and ADXL346 in
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/trivial-devices.txt: adi,adxl345,
adi,adxl346, adi,adxl34x. Given that the last one is a fallback for the
Hi Wolfram,
On Thursday 15 January 2015 13:53:22 Wolfram Sang wrote:
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 02:49:28PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Thursday 18 December 2014 09:21:51 Wolfram Sang wrote:
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 04:15:23AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
The I2C subsystem can match
On Thursday 15 January 2015 16:19:19 Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Thursday 15 January 2015 13:53:22 Wolfram Sang wrote:
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 02:49:28PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Thursday 18 December 2014 09:21:51 Wolfram Sang wrote:
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 04:15:23AM +0200, Laurent
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Laurent Pinchart
laurent.pinch...@ideasonboard.com wrote:
An option would be to remove adi,adxl34x from
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/trivial-devices.txt, in which case
the driver should match explicitly on adi,adxl345 and adi,adxl346.
That might
Been there, got bitten. We only found out too late, because one driver
was in i2c and the other in GPIO (or LED even?), both using 953x :(
That seems like a development, review and/or merge process failure to me, I
wouldn't avoid generic compatible strings for that reason only.
On Thursday 15 January 2015 15:36:37 Wolfram Sang wrote:
Been there, got bitten. We only found out too late, because one driver
was in i2c and the other in GPIO (or LED even?), both using 953x :(
That seems like a development, review and/or merge process failure to
me, I wouldn't avoid
Hi Laurent, Wolfram,
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Laurent Pinchart
laurent.pinch...@ideasonboard.com wrote:
On Thursday 18 December 2014 14:03:18 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
There are three compatible strings defined for the ADXL345
Hi Geert,
On Thursday 18 December 2014 21:23:46 Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Thursday 18 December 2014 14:03:18 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
There are three compatible strings defined for the ADXL345 and ADXL346
in
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 04:15:23AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
The I2C subsystem can match devices without explicit OF support based on
the part of their compatible property after the comma. However, this
mechanism uses the first compatible value only. For adxl34x OF device
nodes the
Hi Wolfram,
On Thursday 18 December 2014 09:21:51 Wolfram Sang wrote:
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 04:15:23AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
The I2C subsystem can match devices without explicit OF support based on
the part of their compatible property after the comma. However, this
mechanism
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Laurent Pinchart
laurent.pinch...@ideasonboard.com wrote:
There are three compatible strings defined for the ADXL345 and ADXL346 in
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/trivial-devices.txt: adi,adxl345,
adi,adxl346, adi,adxl34x. Given that the last one is a
Hi Geert,
On Thursday 18 December 2014 14:03:18 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
There are three compatible strings defined for the ADXL345 and ADXL346 in
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/trivial-devices.txt: adi,adxl345,
adi,adxl346,
The I2C subsystem can match devices without explicit OF support based on
the part of their compatible property after the comma. However, this
mechanism uses the first compatible value only. For adxl34x OF device
nodes the compatible property should list the more specific
adi,adxl345 or adi,adxl346
14 matches
Mail list logo
