Hi Wolfram,
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
> > Our devices and our platforms have some other requirements which
> > turned me away from using i2c_register_board_info.
>
> Okay, so I'll drop these patches.
Sorry if I was unclear, but I am not able to use
> Our devices and our platforms have some other requirements which
> turned me away from using i2c_register_board_info.
Okay, so I'll drop these patches.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Our devices and our platforms have some other requirements which
turned me away from using i2c_register_board_info.
Okay, so I'll drop these patches.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hi Wolfram,
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Wolfram Sang w...@the-dreams.de wrote:
Our devices and our platforms have some other requirements which
turned me away from using i2c_register_board_info.
Okay, so I'll drop these patches.
Sorry if I was unclear, but I am not able to use
On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 16:12:14 -0800, Benson Leung wrote:
> Our devices and our platforms have some other requirements which
> turned me away from using i2c_register_board_info.
>
> i2c_register_board_info looks to create predeclarations for a specific
> i2c bus... However, right now, the
On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 16:12:14 -0800, Benson Leung wrote:
Our devices and our platforms have some other requirements which
turned me away from using i2c_register_board_info.
i2c_register_board_info looks to create predeclarations for a specific
i2c bus... However, right now, the chromeos_laptop
Hi Wolfram,
Thank you for the advice. Sorry for the delay in my response.
(sorry for the duplicated message. I neglected to set plain text in my
email editor).
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > I am not sure I get the problem. If you use i2c_register_board_info() to
> >
Hi Wolfram,
Thank you for the advice. Sorry for the delay in my response.
(sorry for the duplicated message. I neglected to set plain text in my
email editor).
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Wolfram Sang w...@the-dreams.de wrote:
I am not sure I get the problem. If you use
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 02:09:59PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 06:14:18PM -0800, Benson Leung wrote:
> > Hi Wolfram,
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > >> In the chromeos_laptop driver, I do by-name matching of i2c busses to
> > >> find
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 02:09:59PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 06:14:18PM -0800, Benson Leung wrote:
Hi Wolfram,
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Wolfram Sang w...@the-dreams.de wrote:
In the chromeos_laptop driver, I do by-name matching of i2c busses to
find
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 06:14:18PM -0800, Benson Leung wrote:
> Hi Wolfram,
>
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> >> In the chromeos_laptop driver, I do by-name matching of i2c busses to
> >> find busses and instantiate devices, so there is value to have each
> >> named
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 06:14:18PM -0800, Benson Leung wrote:
Hi Wolfram,
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Wolfram Sang w...@the-dreams.de wrote:
In the chromeos_laptop driver, I do by-name matching of i2c busses to
find busses and instantiate devices, so there is value to have each
Hi Wolfram,
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>> In the chromeos_laptop driver, I do by-name matching of i2c busses to
>> find busses and instantiate devices, so there is value to have each
>> named something predictable.
>
> Any why don't you use fixed bus numbers which you
Hi Wolfram,
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Wolfram Sang w...@the-dreams.de wrote:
In the chromeos_laptop driver, I do by-name matching of i2c busses to
find busses and instantiate devices, so there is value to have each
named something predictable.
Any why don't you use fixed bus numbers
> In the chromeos_laptop driver, I do by-name matching of i2c busses to
> find busses and instantiate devices, so there is value to have each
> named something predictable.
Any why don't you use fixed bus numbers which you can attach the devices
to?
signature.asc
Description: Digital
In the chromeos_laptop driver, I do by-name matching of i2c busses to
find busses and instantiate devices, so there is value to have each
named something predictable.
Any why don't you use fixed bus numbers which you can attach the devices
to?
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 07:20:33AM -0700, Benson Leung wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 11:58 PM, Mika Westerberg
> wrote:
> > Is there any real value in having names like "i2c-designware-pci-0"
> > available? I would just drop the whole naming dance instead...
>
> I'd like some way of
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 11:58 PM, Mika Westerberg
wrote:
> Is there any real value in having names like "i2c-designware-pci-0"
> available? I would just drop the whole naming dance instead...
I'd like some way of distinguishing between the two busses by name. It
seems sensible to name them 0 and
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 08:26:50PM -0700, Benson Leung wrote:
> Rather than having the bus names be "i2c-designware-pci--1" because
> we have set the .bus_num to -1 to force dynamic allocation, lets have
> the busses named "i2c-designware-pci-0" and "i2c-designware-pci-1"
> to correspond to the
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 08:26:50PM -0700, Benson Leung wrote:
Rather than having the bus names be i2c-designware-pci--1 because
we have set the .bus_num to -1 to force dynamic allocation, lets have
the busses named i2c-designware-pci-0 and i2c-designware-pci-1
to correspond to the correct
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 11:58 PM, Mika Westerberg
mika.westerb...@linux.intel.com wrote:
Is there any real value in having names like i2c-designware-pci-0
available? I would just drop the whole naming dance instead...
I'd like some way of distinguishing between the two busses by name. It
seems
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 07:20:33AM -0700, Benson Leung wrote:
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 11:58 PM, Mika Westerberg
mika.westerb...@linux.intel.com wrote:
Is there any real value in having names like i2c-designware-pci-0
available? I would just drop the whole naming dance instead...
I'd like
Rather than having the bus names be "i2c-designware-pci--1" because
we have set the .bus_num to -1 to force dynamic allocation, lets have
the busses named "i2c-designware-pci-0" and "i2c-designware-pci-1"
to correspond to the correct names of these busses.
The adapter number will still be
Rather than having the bus names be i2c-designware-pci--1 because
we have set the .bus_num to -1 to force dynamic allocation, lets have
the busses named i2c-designware-pci-0 and i2c-designware-pci-1
to correspond to the correct names of these busses.
The adapter number will still be dynamically
24 matches
Mail list logo
