Hi Alexandre & Wolfram,
On Sat, Sep 01, 2018 at 02:43:53PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > Because the designware IP was not able to handle the SDA hold time before
> > version 1.11a, MSCC has its own implementation. Add support for it and then
> > add
> > i2c on ocelot boards.
> >
> > I would
Hi Alexandre & Wolfram,
On Sat, Sep 01, 2018 at 02:43:53PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > Because the designware IP was not able to handle the SDA hold time before
> > version 1.11a, MSCC has its own implementation. Add support for it and then
> > add
> > i2c on ocelot boards.
> >
> > I would
> Because the designware IP was not able to handle the SDA hold time before
> version 1.11a, MSCC has its own implementation. Add support for it and then
> add
> i2c on ocelot boards.
>
> I would expect patches 1 to 5 to go through the i2c tree.
Applied to for-next, thanks!
> Pathces 6-7 can
> Because the designware IP was not able to handle the SDA hold time before
> version 1.11a, MSCC has its own implementation. Add support for it and then
> add
> i2c on ocelot boards.
>
> I would expect patches 1 to 5 to go through the i2c tree.
Applied to for-next, thanks!
> Pathces 6-7 can
Hello,
Because the designware IP was not able to handle the SDA hold time before
version 1.11a, MSCC has its own implementation. Add support for it and then add
i2c on ocelot boards.
I would expect patches 1 to 5 to go through the i2c tree.
Pathces 6-7 can go through the mips tree now that the
Hello,
Because the designware IP was not able to handle the SDA hold time before
version 1.11a, MSCC has its own implementation. Add support for it and then add
i2c on ocelot boards.
I would expect patches 1 to 5 to go through the i2c tree.
Pathces 6-7 can go through the mips tree now that the
6 matches
Mail list logo