On 10/16/2013 03:04 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 12:47 AM, Rafael J. Wysockir...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 04:31:43 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 11:24:01PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 01:48:29 PM
On Mon, 2013-10-14 at 20:47 +0800, Zhang Rui wrote:
On Mon, 2013-10-14 at 14:18 +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
On 10/14/2013 12:23 PM, Zhang Rui wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 2013-10-10 at 17:17 +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
There is a minor fault about ACPI enumerated I2C devices with their
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:37:02PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 07:44:44 PM Zhang Rui wrote:
On Mon, 2013-10-14 at 20:47 +0800, Zhang Rui wrote:
On Mon, 2013-10-14 at 14:18 +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
On 10/14/2013 12:23 PM, Zhang Rui wrote:
Hi,
On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 01:48:29 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:37:02PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 07:44:44 PM Zhang Rui wrote:
On Mon, 2013-10-14 at 20:47 +0800, Zhang Rui wrote:
On Mon, 2013-10-14 at 14:18 +0300, Jarkko
On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 01:48:29 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:37:02PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 07:44:44 PM Zhang Rui wrote:
On Mon, 2013-10-14 at 20:47 +0800, Zhang Rui wrote:
On Mon, 2013-10-14 at 14:18 +0300, Jarkko
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 11:24:01PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 01:48:29 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:37:02PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 07:44:44 PM Zhang Rui wrote:
On Mon, 2013-10-14 at 20:47
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 12:47 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 04:31:43 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 11:24:01PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 01:48:29 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Tue, Oct 15,
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 01:04:02AM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 12:47 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 04:31:43 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 11:24:01PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tuesday, October
On 10/12/2013 08:04 AM, Mika Westerberg wrote:
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 12:16:02AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I think that this is intentional. We don't want that the i2c modalias
matches with the ACPI device (like with the i2c:INTABCD). Instead use ACPI
IDs that are added to the driver to
On 10/12/2013 07:18 PM, Mika Westerberg wrote:
If we have two ACPI enumerated devices, they have following modalias:
i2c-device0: i2c:INTABCD:00
acpi:INTABCD
i2c-device1: i2c:INTABCD:01
acpi:INTABCD
Likelihood that some random I2C driver has INTABCD:00 or
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 09:34:39AM +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
On 10/12/2013 08:04 AM, Mika Westerberg wrote:
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 12:16:02AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I think that this is intentional. We don't want that the i2c modalias
matches with the ACPI device (like with the
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 09:45:53AM +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
On 10/12/2013 07:18 PM, Mika Westerberg wrote:
If we have two ACPI enumerated devices, they have following modalias:
i2c-device0: i2c:INTABCD:00
acpi:INTABCD
i2c-device1: i2c:INTABCD:01
Hi,
On Thu, 2013-10-10 at 17:17 +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
There is a minor fault about ACPI enumerated I2C devices with their modalias
attribute. Now modalias is set by device instance not by hardware ID.
For example i2c:INTABCD:00, i2c:INTABCD:01 etc.
This means each device instance gets
On 10/14/2013 12:23 PM, Zhang Rui wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 2013-10-10 at 17:17 +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
There is a minor fault about ACPI enumerated I2C devices with their modalias
attribute. Now modalias is set by device instance not by hardware ID.
For example i2c:INTABCD:00, i2c:INTABCD:01
On Mon, 2013-10-14 at 14:18 +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
On 10/14/2013 12:23 PM, Zhang Rui wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 2013-10-10 at 17:17 +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
There is a minor fault about ACPI enumerated I2C devices with their
modalias
attribute. Now modalias is set by device instance
On Saturday, October 12, 2013 08:04:13 AM Mika Westerberg wrote:
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 12:16:02AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I think that this is intentional. We don't want that the i2c modalias
matches with the ACPI device (like with the i2c:INTABCD). Instead use ACPI
IDs that
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 03:45:15PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, October 12, 2013 08:04:13 AM Mika Westerberg wrote:
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 12:16:02AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I think that this is intentional. We don't want that the i2c modalias
matches with the
On Friday, October 11, 2013 05:49:46 PM Mika Westerberg wrote:
+Rafael
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 05:17:49PM +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
There is a minor fault about ACPI enumerated I2C devices with their modalias
attribute. Now modalias is set by device instance not by hardware ID.
For
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 12:16:02AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I think that this is intentional. We don't want that the i2c modalias
matches with the ACPI device (like with the i2c:INTABCD). Instead use ACPI
IDs that are added to the driver to match with the ACPI device.
Well, I'm not
19 matches
Mail list logo
