Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > The problem with waiting until 4.8 with the rest of the series is that it
> > will likely go stale, e.g. patch 22 ([media] rtl2832: change the i2c gate
> > to be mux-locked) touches a ton of register accesses in that driver since
> > it removes a regmap wrapper that is
Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > The problem with waiting until 4.8 with the rest of the series is that it
> > will likely go stale, e.g. patch 22 ([media] rtl2832: change the i2c gate
> > to be mux-locked) touches a ton of register accesses in that driver since
> > it removes a regmap wrapper that is
> The problem with waiting until 4.8 with the rest of the series is that it
> will likely go stale, e.g. patch 22 ([media] rtl2832: change the i2c gate
> to be mux-locked) touches a ton of register accesses in that driver since
> it removes a regmap wrapper that is rendered obsolete. Expecting
> The problem with waiting until 4.8 with the rest of the series is that it
> will likely go stale, e.g. patch 22 ([media] rtl2832: change the i2c gate
> to be mux-locked) touches a ton of register accesses in that driver since
> it removes a regmap wrapper that is rendered obsolete. Expecting
Hi Wolfram,
Wolfram Sang wrote:
> This was the diff of v6:
>
> > 32 files changed, 1277 insertions(+), 915 deletions(-)
>
> This is v7:
>
> > 32 files changed, 1225 insertions(+), 916 deletions(-)
>
> So, we gained a little overall. And while the individual drivers have a
> few lines more
Hi Wolfram,
Wolfram Sang wrote:
> This was the diff of v6:
>
> > 32 files changed, 1277 insertions(+), 915 deletions(-)
>
> This is v7:
>
> > 32 files changed, 1225 insertions(+), 916 deletions(-)
>
> So, we gained a little overall. And while the individual drivers have a
> few lines more
On 04/20/2016 06:17 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> v7 compared to v6:
> - Removed i2c_mux_reserve_adapters, and all realloc attempts in
> i2c_mux_add_adapter. Supply a maximum number of adapters in i2c_mux_alloc
> instead.
> - Removed i2c_mux_one_adapter since it is was hard to use correctly, which
On 04/20/2016 06:17 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> v7 compared to v6:
> - Removed i2c_mux_reserve_adapters, and all realloc attempts in
> i2c_mux_add_adapter. Supply a maximum number of adapters in i2c_mux_alloc
> instead.
> - Removed i2c_mux_one_adapter since it is was hard to use correctly, which
On 04/20/2016 06:17 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
Retested all the previously tested + now I tested also cx231xx with
Hauppauge 930C HD device having eeprom other mux port and demod on the
other port.
[media] si2168: change the i2c gate to be mux-locked
[media] m88ds3103: convert to use an
On 04/20/2016 06:17 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
Retested all the previously tested + now I tested also cx231xx with
Hauppauge 930C HD device having eeprom other mux port and demod on the
other port.
[media] si2168: change the i2c gate to be mux-locked
[media] m88ds3103: convert to use an
This was the diff of v6:
> 32 files changed, 1277 insertions(+), 915 deletions(-)
This is v7:
> 32 files changed, 1225 insertions(+), 916 deletions(-)
So, we gained a little overall. And while the individual drivers have a
few lines more now, I still think it is more readable.
So, thanks
This was the diff of v6:
> 32 files changed, 1277 insertions(+), 915 deletions(-)
This is v7:
> 32 files changed, 1225 insertions(+), 916 deletions(-)
So, we gained a little overall. And while the individual drivers have a
few lines more now, I still think it is more readable.
So, thanks
Hi!
I have a pair of boards with this i2c topology:
GPIO ---| -- BAT1
| v /
I2C -+--B---+ MUX
| \
EEPROM -- BAT2
(B denotes the boundary between the
Hi!
I have a pair of boards with this i2c topology:
GPIO ---| -- BAT1
| v /
I2C -+--B---+ MUX
| \
EEPROM -- BAT2
(B denotes the boundary between the
14 matches
Mail list logo
