On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 04:54:40PM +0100, Jean-Francois Moine wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 15:19:34 +
> Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>
> > I'm not saying that it has to match the physical device fitted - I'm
> > merely suggesting not using nxp,tda1998x which could (and as Sebastian
> >
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 15:19:34 +
Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> I'm not saying that it has to match the physical device fitted - I'm
> merely suggesting not using nxp,tda1998x which could (and as Sebastian
> has found, does) conflict with other devices with different properties.
>
> We
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 03:59:35PM +0100, Jean-Francois Moine wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 14:31:10 +
> Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>
> > 1. change the DT compatible strings the driver has to accept both
> >nxp,tda19988 and nxp,tda19989, and set the appropriate device
> >in the
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Jean-Francois Moine wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 14:31:10 +
> Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>
>> 1. change the DT compatible strings the driver has to accept both
>>nxp,tda19988 and nxp,tda19989, and set the appropriate device
>>in the DT file
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 14:31:10 +
Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> 1. change the DT compatible strings the driver has to accept both
>nxp,tda19988 and nxp,tda19989, and set the appropriate device
>in the DT file (tda19988). I'm a bit nervous about using
>"nxp,tda1998x" in case
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 02:52:21PM +0100, Jean-Francois Moine wrote:
> Thanks for the link.
>
> OK, then, as the linux tda998x driver handles only the tda 19988 and
> 19989 chips, the HDMI I2C address is always 0x70.
>
> So, question: Russell and Sebastian, do you still want an other patch?
>
>
On 03/20/2014 02:52 PM, Jean-Francois Moine wrote:
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 14:32:18 +0100
Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
Ok, I had another round of google'ing and found this:
http://hipstercircuits.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/TDA19988.pdf
There, the datasheet specifically for TDA19988 only
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 14:32:18 +0100
Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
> Ok, I had another round of google'ing and found this:
> http://hipstercircuits.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/TDA19988.pdf
>
> There, the datasheet specifically for TDA19988 only states 0x70 and
> 0x34 as the two i2c addresses.
On 03/20/2014 02:01 PM, Jean-Francois Moine wrote:
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 13:32:24 +0100
Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
+ - reg: I2C address - must be <0x70>
TDA9983b datasheet says:
"Bits A0 and A1 of the I2C-bus device address are externally selected
by pins A0 and A1."
Therefore, 0x70,
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 02:01:56PM +0100, Jean-Francois Moine wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 13:32:24 +0100
> Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
>
> > > + - reg: I2C address - must be <0x70>
> >
> > TDA9983b datasheet says:
> >
> > "Bits A0 and A1 of the I2C-bus device address are externally
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 14:01:56 +0100
Jean-Francois Moine wrote:
> For other boards using the TDA998x family, if the I2C address is
> different from 0x70, have you an idea about what can be the CEC I2C
> address? (this value is actually hard-coded in the TDA998x driver)
I had a look again on the
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 13:32:24 +0100
Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
> > + - reg: I2C address - must be <0x70>
>
> TDA9983b datasheet says:
>
> "Bits A0 and A1 of the I2C-bus device address are externally selected
> by pins A0 and A1."
>
> Therefore, 0x70, 0x71, 0x72, and 0x73 are valid i2c
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 01:32:24PM +0100, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
> On 03/20/2014 09:58 AM, Jean-Francois Moine wrote:
>> The I2C address (reg) is required for the TDA998x driver to be loaded
>> and initialized.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jean-Francois Moine
>> ---
>> This patch applies to
On 03/20/2014 09:58 AM, Jean-Francois Moine wrote:
The I2C address (reg) is required for the TDA998x driver to be loaded
and initialized.
Signed-off-by: Jean-Francois Moine
---
This patch applies to linux-next.
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/drm/i2c/tda998x.txt | 2 ++
1 file
The I2C address (reg) is required for the TDA998x driver to be loaded
and initialized.
Signed-off-by: Jean-Francois Moine
---
This patch applies to linux-next.
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/drm/i2c/tda998x.txt | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git
The I2C address (reg) is required for the TDA998x driver to be loaded
and initialized.
Signed-off-by: Jean-Francois Moine moin...@free.fr
---
This patch applies to linux-next.
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/drm/i2c/tda998x.txt | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git
On 03/20/2014 09:58 AM, Jean-Francois Moine wrote:
The I2C address (reg) is required for the TDA998x driver to be loaded
and initialized.
Signed-off-by: Jean-Francois Moine moin...@free.fr
---
This patch applies to linux-next.
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/drm/i2c/tda998x.txt | 2 ++
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 01:32:24PM +0100, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
On 03/20/2014 09:58 AM, Jean-Francois Moine wrote:
The I2C address (reg) is required for the TDA998x driver to be loaded
and initialized.
Signed-off-by: Jean-Francois Moine moin...@free.fr
---
This patch applies to
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 13:32:24 +0100
Sebastian Hesselbarth sebastian.hesselba...@gmail.com wrote:
+ - reg: I2C address - must be 0x70
TDA9983b datasheet says:
Bits A0 and A1 of the I2C-bus device address are externally selected
by pins A0 and A1.
Therefore, 0x70, 0x71, 0x72, and 0x73
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 14:01:56 +0100
Jean-Francois Moine moin...@free.fr wrote:
For other boards using the TDA998x family, if the I2C address is
different from 0x70, have you an idea about what can be the CEC I2C
address? (this value is actually hard-coded in the TDA998x driver)
I had a look
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 02:01:56PM +0100, Jean-Francois Moine wrote:
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 13:32:24 +0100
Sebastian Hesselbarth sebastian.hesselba...@gmail.com wrote:
+ - reg: I2C address - must be 0x70
TDA9983b datasheet says:
Bits A0 and A1 of the I2C-bus device address are
On 03/20/2014 02:01 PM, Jean-Francois Moine wrote:
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 13:32:24 +0100
Sebastian Hesselbarth sebastian.hesselba...@gmail.com wrote:
+ - reg: I2C address - must be 0x70
TDA9983b datasheet says:
Bits A0 and A1 of the I2C-bus device address are externally selected
by pins A0
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 14:32:18 +0100
Sebastian Hesselbarth sebastian.hesselba...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, I had another round of google'ing and found this:
http://hipstercircuits.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/TDA19988.pdf
There, the datasheet specifically for TDA19988 only states 0x70 and
0x34
On 03/20/2014 02:52 PM, Jean-Francois Moine wrote:
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 14:32:18 +0100
Sebastian Hesselbarth sebastian.hesselba...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, I had another round of google'ing and found this:
http://hipstercircuits.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/TDA19988.pdf
There, the datasheet
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 02:52:21PM +0100, Jean-Francois Moine wrote:
Thanks for the link.
OK, then, as the linux tda998x driver handles only the tda 19988 and
19989 chips, the HDMI I2C address is always 0x70.
So, question: Russell and Sebastian, do you still want an other patch?
Other
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 14:31:10 +
Russell King - ARM Linux li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
1. change the DT compatible strings the driver has to accept both
nxp,tda19988 and nxp,tda19989, and set the appropriate device
in the DT file (tda19988). I'm a bit nervous about using
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Jean-Francois Moine moin...@free.fr wrote:
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 14:31:10 +
Russell King - ARM Linux li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
1. change the DT compatible strings the driver has to accept both
nxp,tda19988 and nxp,tda19989, and set the appropriate
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 03:59:35PM +0100, Jean-Francois Moine wrote:
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 14:31:10 +
Russell King - ARM Linux li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
1. change the DT compatible strings the driver has to accept both
nxp,tda19988 and nxp,tda19989, and set the appropriate device
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 15:19:34 +
Russell King - ARM Linux li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
I'm not saying that it has to match the physical device fitted - I'm
merely suggesting not using nxp,tda1998x which could (and as Sebastian
has found, does) conflict with other devices with different
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 04:54:40PM +0100, Jean-Francois Moine wrote:
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 15:19:34 +
Russell King - ARM Linux li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
I'm not saying that it has to match the physical device fitted - I'm
merely suggesting not using nxp,tda1998x which could (and as
30 matches
Mail list logo
