It is not good idea to mix static and dynamic I2C adapter numbering. In
this particular case on Lynxpoint we had graphics I2C adapter which took
the first numbers preventing the designware I2C driver from using the
adapter numbers it preferred.
Since Lynxpoint support was just introduced and
It is not good idea to mix static and dynamic I2C adapter numbering. In
this particular case on Lynxpoint we had graphics I2C adapter which took
the first numbers preventing the designware I2C driver from using the
adapter numbers it preferred.
Since Lynxpoint support was just introduced and
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 11:29:24AM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 12:23:19PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 11:06:05AM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 02:09:57AM -, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > > > It is not good idea to
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 12:23:19PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 11:06:05AM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 02:09:57AM -, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > > It is not good idea to mix static and dynamic I2C adapter numbering. In
> > > this particular
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 11:06:05AM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 02:09:57AM -, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > It is not good idea to mix static and dynamic I2C adapter numbering. In
> > this particular case on Lynxpoint we had graphics I2C adapter which took
> > the first
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 02:09:57AM -, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> It is not good idea to mix static and dynamic I2C adapter numbering. In
> this particular case on Lynxpoint we had graphics I2C adapter which took
> the first numbers preventing the designware I2C driver from using the
> adapter
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 02:09:57AM -, Mika Westerberg wrote:
It is not good idea to mix static and dynamic I2C adapter numbering. In
this particular case on Lynxpoint we had graphics I2C adapter which took
the first numbers preventing the designware I2C driver from using the
adapter
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 11:06:05AM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 02:09:57AM -, Mika Westerberg wrote:
It is not good idea to mix static and dynamic I2C adapter numbering. In
this particular case on Lynxpoint we had graphics I2C adapter which took
the first numbers
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 12:23:19PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 11:06:05AM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 02:09:57AM -, Mika Westerberg wrote:
It is not good idea to mix static and dynamic I2C adapter numbering. In
this particular case on
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 11:29:24AM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 12:23:19PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 11:06:05AM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 02:09:57AM -, Mika Westerberg wrote:
It is not good idea to mix static
It is not good idea to mix static and dynamic I2C adapter numbering. In
this particular case on Lynxpoint we had graphics I2C adapter which took
the first numbers preventing the designware I2C driver from using the
adapter numbers it preferred.
Fix this by switching to use dynamic adapter
It is not good idea to mix static and dynamic I2C adapter numbering. In
this particular case on Lynxpoint we had graphics I2C adapter which took
the first numbers preventing the designware I2C driver from using the
adapter numbers it preferred.
Fix this by switching to use dynamic adapter
12 matches
Mail list logo
