Re: [PATCH] mfd: arizona: Update volatile registers for WM5110 DSP

2013-09-17 Thread Lee Jones
> No problem sorry the commit message was a little vague there. > Seems I accidentally generated the first version of this patch > against the ASoC tree, but this got me thinking now you are > looking after MFD patches which tree should I be generating them > against? That depends. If you are

Re: [PATCH] mfd: arizona: Update volatile registers for WM5110 DSP

2013-09-17 Thread Charles Keepax
No problem sorry the commit message was a little vague there. Seems I accidentally generated the first version of this patch against the ASoC tree, but this got me thinking now you are looking after MFD patches which tree should I be generating them against? Thanks, Charles On Tue, Sep 17, 2013

Re: [PATCH] mfd: arizona: Update volatile registers for WM5110 DSP

2013-09-17 Thread Lee Jones
On Mon, 16 Sep 2013, Charles Keepax wrote: Any chance of a little more information in the commit message? What are scratch registers and why are they required now where they weren't before? Why are the control and clocking regulators no longer needed? > Signed-off-by: Charles Keepax > --- >

Re: [PATCH] mfd: arizona: Update volatile registers for WM5110 DSP

2013-09-17 Thread Lee Jones
On Mon, 16 Sep 2013, Charles Keepax wrote: Any chance of a little more information in the commit message? What are scratch registers and why are they required now where they weren't before? Why are the control and clocking regulators no longer needed? Signed-off-by: Charles Keepax

Re: [PATCH] mfd: arizona: Update volatile registers for WM5110 DSP

2013-09-17 Thread Charles Keepax
No problem sorry the commit message was a little vague there. Seems I accidentally generated the first version of this patch against the ASoC tree, but this got me thinking now you are looking after MFD patches which tree should I be generating them against? Thanks, Charles On Tue, Sep 17, 2013

Re: [PATCH] mfd: arizona: Update volatile registers for WM5110 DSP

2013-09-17 Thread Lee Jones
No problem sorry the commit message was a little vague there. Seems I accidentally generated the first version of this patch against the ASoC tree, but this got me thinking now you are looking after MFD patches which tree should I be generating them against? That depends. If you are

[PATCH] mfd: arizona: Update volatile registers for WM5110 DSP

2013-09-16 Thread Charles Keepax
Signed-off-by: Charles Keepax --- drivers/mfd/wm5110-tables.c | 18 -- 1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/mfd/wm5110-tables.c b/drivers/mfd/wm5110-tables.c index 2a79723..92c6ea6 100644 --- a/drivers/mfd/wm5110-tables.c +++

[PATCH] mfd: arizona: Update volatile registers for WM5110 DSP

2013-09-16 Thread Charles Keepax
Signed-off-by: Charles Keepax ckee...@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com --- drivers/mfd/wm5110-tables.c | 18 -- 1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/mfd/wm5110-tables.c b/drivers/mfd/wm5110-tables.c index 2a79723..92c6ea6 100644 ---