Lennart,
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 11:41:51 -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 07:49:33PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > The scx200_acb driver was heavily modified in 2.6.17 and 2.6.18, not
> > much since then. I am not familiar with the hardware so I can't comment
> > on which
Lennart,
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 11:41:51 -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 07:49:33PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
The scx200_acb driver was heavily modified in 2.6.17 and 2.6.18, not
much since then. I am not familiar with the hardware so I can't comment
on which chips are
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 07:49:33PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> The scx200_acb driver was heavily modified in 2.6.17 and 2.6.18, not
> much since then. I am not familiar with the hardware so I can't comment
> on which chips are supposed to work and which aren't.
Well 2.6.18's scx200_acb works on
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 07:49:33PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
The scx200_acb driver was heavily modified in 2.6.17 and 2.6.18, not
much since then. I am not familiar with the hardware so I can't comment
on which chips are supposed to work and which aren't.
Well 2.6.18's scx200_acb works on the
Hi Lennart,
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:59:42 -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 08:54:13AM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > The major difference is that the implementation in scx200_i2c is
> > hardware-specific, while the i2c-gpio driver is a generic one, so it's
> > a lot better.
Hi Lennart,
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:59:42 -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 08:54:13AM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
The major difference is that the implementation in scx200_i2c is
hardware-specific, while the i2c-gpio driver is a generic one, so it's
a lot better.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 08:54:13AM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> The major difference is that the implementation in scx200_i2c is
> hardware-specific, while the i2c-gpio driver is a generic one, so it's
> a lot better.
>
> What this means is that i2c-gpio obsoletes scx200_i2c, so I am inclined
>
Hi Len,
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:42:56 -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 07:28:07PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > Otherwise it looks OK to me, I take the patch. If others have comments
> > or objections, just speak up and submit incremental patches as needed.
> >
> > Now I
Hi Len,
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:42:56 -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 07:28:07PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
Otherwise it looks OK to me, I take the patch. If others have comments
or objections, just speak up and submit incremental patches as needed.
Now I would
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 08:54:13AM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
The major difference is that the implementation in scx200_i2c is
hardware-specific, while the i2c-gpio driver is a generic one, so it's
a lot better.
What this means is that i2c-gpio obsoletes scx200_i2c, so I am inclined
to
On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 07:28:07PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Otherwise it looks OK to me, I take the patch. If others have comments
> or objections, just speak up and submit incremental patches as needed.
>
> Now I would like to see platform code actually using this.
Any idea how similar this
On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 07:28:07PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
Otherwise it looks OK to me, I take the patch. If others have comments
or objections, just speak up and submit incremental patches as needed.
Now I would like to see platform code actually using this.
Any idea how similar this new
Hi Haavard,
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 16:34:18 +0200, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 14:56:47 +0200
> Haavard Skinnemoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > o Default to a very low SCL frequency (6.6 kHz) if clock stretching
> > isn't supported
>
> This would have been true if I
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 14:56:47 +0200
Haavard Skinnemoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> o Default to a very low SCL frequency (6.6 kHz) if clock stretching
> isn't supported
This would have been true if I had remembered to save before generating
the patch...
Updated patch below. Sorry about
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 14:56:47 +0200
Haavard Skinnemoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
o Default to a very low SCL frequency (6.6 kHz) if clock stretching
isn't supported
This would have been true if I had remembered to save before generating
the patch...
Updated patch below. Sorry about the
Hi Haavard,
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 16:34:18 +0200, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 14:56:47 +0200
Haavard Skinnemoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
o Default to a very low SCL frequency (6.6 kHz) if clock stretching
isn't supported
This would have been true if I had
16 matches
Mail list logo
