On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 4:58 AM, Christopher Heiny wrote:
> rmi.h provides public definitions required by the RMI bus implementation and
> modules that interact with it.
>
> debugfs and sysfs attributes are documented in files in
> Documentation/ABI/testing. There's two files, one for debugfs
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 4:58 AM, Christopher Heiny che...@synaptics.com wrote:
rmi.h provides public definitions required by the RMI bus implementation and
modules that interact with it.
debugfs and sysfs attributes are documented in files in
Documentation/ABI/testing. There's two files,
rmi.h provides public definitions required by the RMI bus implementation and
modules that interact with it.
debugfs and sysfs attributes are documented in files in
Documentation/ABI/testing. There's two files, one for debugfs and one for
sysfs.
Signed-off-by: Christopher Heiny
Cc: Dmitry
rmi.h provides public definitions required by the RMI bus implementation and
modules that interact with it.
debugfs and sysfs attributes are documented in files in
Documentation/ABI/testing. There's two files, one for debugfs and one for
sysfs.
Signed-off-by: Christopher Heiny
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 03:10:20PM -0700, Christopher Heiny wrote:
> On 10/11/2012 10:16 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> >On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 03:56:22AM +, Christopher Heiny wrote:
> >Fix your mailer to word wrap within paragraphs.
> Sorry - I was on the road and had to use a web interface. It
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 03:10:20PM -0700, Christopher Heiny wrote:
On 10/11/2012 10:16 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 03:56:22AM +, Christopher Heiny wrote:
Fix your mailer to word wrap within paragraphs.
Sorry - I was on the road and had to use a web interface. It looked
On 10/15/2012 11:26 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 05:32:59PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:41 AM, Christopher Heiny wrote:
In previous patch submissions, we always used these warning functions.
But in the feedback on those patches, we were asked to
On 10/11/2012 08:32 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:41 AM, Christopher Heiny wrote:
Linus Walleij wrote:
But please use arithmetic operators (I think I said this on the last
review):
dest[0] = src & 0xFF;
dest[1] = src >> 8;
Doing it the above way makes artithmetic look
On 10/11/2012 01:24 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 03:41:41AM +, Christopher Heiny wrote:
>Linus Walleij wrote:
> >On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 6:09 AM, Christopher Heiny
wrote:
> >
> > >+#ifdef CONFIG_RMI4_DEBUG
> > >+/**
> > >+ * Utility routine to handle writes to
On Tuesday, October 23, 2012 03:39:00 PM Christopher Heiny wrote:
> On 10/11/2012 01:20 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 09:09:58PM -0700, Christopher Heiny wrote:
> >> +
> >> + int (*write_block)(struct rmi_phys_device *phys, u16 addr, u8 *buf,
> >> +
On 10/11/2012 01:20 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 09:09:58PM -0700, Christopher Heiny wrote:
+
+ int (*write_block)(struct rmi_phys_device *phys, u16 addr, u8 *buf,
+ int len);
+ int (*read_block)(struct rmi_phys_device *phys, u16 addr,
On 10/11/2012 10:16 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 03:56:22AM +, Christopher Heiny wrote:
Fix your mailer to word wrap within paragraphs.
Sorry - I was on the road and had to use a web interface. It looked OK
during composition. Is this better?
>If this feature is a
On 10/11/2012 10:16 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 03:56:22AM +, Christopher Heiny wrote:
Fix your mailer to word wrap within paragraphs.
Sorry - I was on the road and had to use a web interface. It looked OK
during composition. Is this better?
If this feature is a
On 10/11/2012 01:20 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 09:09:58PM -0700, Christopher Heiny wrote:
+
+ int (*write_block)(struct rmi_phys_device *phys, u16 addr, u8 *buf,
+ int len);
+ int (*read_block)(struct rmi_phys_device *phys, u16 addr,
On Tuesday, October 23, 2012 03:39:00 PM Christopher Heiny wrote:
On 10/11/2012 01:20 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 09:09:58PM -0700, Christopher Heiny wrote:
+
+ int (*write_block)(struct rmi_phys_device *phys, u16 addr, u8 *buf,
+ int len);
+
On 10/11/2012 01:24 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 03:41:41AM +, Christopher Heiny wrote:
Linus Walleij wrote:
On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 6:09 AM, Christopher Heinyche...@synaptics.com
wrote:
+#ifdef CONFIG_RMI4_DEBUG
+/**
+ * Utility routine to handle writes to
On 10/11/2012 08:32 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:41 AM, Christopher Heiny che...@synaptics.com wrote:
Linus Walleij wrote:
But please use arithmetic operators (I think I said this on the last
review):
dest[0] = src 0xFF;
dest[1] = src 8;
Doing it the above way makes
On 10/15/2012 11:26 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 05:32:59PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:41 AM, Christopher Heiny che...@synaptics.com wrote:
In previous patch submissions, we always used these warning functions.
But in the feedback on those patches,
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 05:32:59PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:41 AM, Christopher Heiny
> wrote:
> > In previous patch submissions, we always used these warning functions.
> > But in the feedback on those patches, we were asked to just make
> > sysfs show/store NULL
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 05:32:59PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:41 AM, Christopher Heiny che...@synaptics.com
wrote:
In previous patch submissions, we always used these warning functions.
But in the feedback on those patches, we were asked to just make
sysfs
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 03:56:22AM +, Christopher Heiny wrote:
Fix your mailer to word wrap within paragraphs.
> If this feature is a deal-breaker, we can take it out. In the absence
> of a generic GPIO implementation for CS, though, I'd much rather leave
> it in. Once generic GPIO CS
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:41 AM, Christopher Heiny wrote:
> Linus Walleij wrote:
>> But please use arithmetic operators (I think I said this on the last
>> review):
>>
>> dest[0] = src & 0xFF;
>> dest[1] = src >> 8;
>>
>> Doing it the above way makes artithmetic look like maths, and it isn't.
>>
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:41 AM, Christopher Heiny wrote:
> Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 6:09 AM, Christopher Heiny
>> wrote:
>> > + chargerinput ... (rw) User space programs can use this to tell
>> > the + sensor that the system is plugged into an
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 03:41:41AM +, Christopher Heiny wrote:
> Linus Walleij wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 6:09 AM, Christopher Heiny
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_RMI4_DEBUG
> > > +/**
> > > + * Utility routine to handle writes to read-only attributes. Hopefully
> > > + * this
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 09:09:58PM -0700, Christopher Heiny wrote:
> +
> + int (*write_block)(struct rmi_phys_device *phys, u16 addr, u8 *buf,
> +int len);
> + int (*read_block)(struct rmi_phys_device *phys, u16 addr, u8 *buf,
> + int len);
> +
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 09:09:58PM -0700, Christopher Heiny wrote:
+
+ int (*write_block)(struct rmi_phys_device *phys, u16 addr, u8 *buf,
+int len);
+ int (*read_block)(struct rmi_phys_device *phys, u16 addr, u8 *buf,
+ int len);
+
If
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 03:41:41AM +, Christopher Heiny wrote:
Linus Walleij wrote:
On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 6:09 AM, Christopher Heiny che...@synaptics.com
wrote:
+#ifdef CONFIG_RMI4_DEBUG
+/**
+ * Utility routine to handle writes to read-only attributes. Hopefully
+ *
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:41 AM, Christopher Heiny che...@synaptics.com wrote:
Linus Walleij wrote:
On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 6:09 AM, Christopher Heiny che...@synaptics.com
wrote:
+ chargerinput ... (rw) User space programs can use this to tell
the + sensor that
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:41 AM, Christopher Heiny che...@synaptics.com wrote:
Linus Walleij wrote:
But please use arithmetic operators (I think I said this on the last
review):
dest[0] = src 0xFF;
dest[1] = src 8;
Doing it the above way makes artithmetic look like maths, and it isn't.
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 03:56:22AM +, Christopher Heiny wrote:
Fix your mailer to word wrap within paragraphs.
If this feature is a deal-breaker, we can take it out. In the absence
of a generic GPIO implementation for CS, though, I'd much rather leave
it in. Once generic GPIO CS
Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 09:43:13AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 6:09 AM, Christopher Heiny
> > wrote:
> > > + * @cs_assert - For systems where the SPI subsystem does not control
> > > the CS/SSB + * line, or where such control is broken, you can
Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 6:09 AM, Christopher Heiny
> wrote:
> > As requested in the feedback from the previous patch, we've documented the
> > debugfs and sysfs attributes in files in
> > Documentation/ABI/testing. There's two files, one for debugfs and one
> > for sysfs.
Linus Walleij wrote:
On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 6:09 AM, Christopher Heiny che...@synaptics.com
wrote:
As requested in the feedback from the previous patch, we've documented the
debugfs and sysfs attributes in files in
Documentation/ABI/testing. There's two files, one for debugfs and one
Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 09:43:13AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 6:09 AM, Christopher Heiny che...@synaptics.com
wrote:
+ * @cs_assert - For systems where the SPI subsystem does not control
the CS/SSB + * line, or where such control is broken, you
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 09:43:13AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 6:09 AM, Christopher Heiny
> wrote:
> > + * @cs_assert - For systems where the SPI subsystem does not control the
> > CS/SSB
> > + * line, or where such control is broken, you can provide a custom routine
On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 6:09 AM, Christopher Heiny wrote:
> As requested in the feedback from the previous patch, we've documented the
> debugfs and sysfs attributes in files in Documentation/ABI/testing. There's
> two files, one for debugfs and one for sysfs.
This is a massive improvement!
On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 6:09 AM, Christopher Heiny che...@synaptics.com wrote:
As requested in the feedback from the previous patch, we've documented the
debugfs and sysfs attributes in files in Documentation/ABI/testing. There's
two files, one for debugfs and one for sysfs.
This is a massive
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 09:43:13AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 6:09 AM, Christopher Heiny che...@synaptics.com
wrote:
+ * @cs_assert - For systems where the SPI subsystem does not control the
CS/SSB
+ * line, or where such control is broken, you can provide a
As requested in the feedback from the previous patch, we've documented the
debugfs and sysfs attributes in files in Documentation/ABI/testing. There's
two files, one for debugfs and one for sysfs.
Signed-off-by: Christopher Heiny
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov
Cc: Linus Walleij
Cc: Naveen Kumar
As requested in the feedback from the previous patch, we've documented the
debugfs and sysfs attributes in files in Documentation/ABI/testing. There's
two files, one for debugfs and one for sysfs.
Signed-off-by: Christopher Heiny che...@synaptics.com
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov
40 matches
Mail list logo
