On 16.10.2013 20:33, Michael Krufky wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Antti Palosaari wrote:
On 16.10.2013 20:19, Michael Krufky wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Jean Delvare wrote:
Hi Michael,
On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:04:42 -0400, Michael Krufky wrote:
YIKES!! i2c_new_probe
On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 20:45:39 +0300, Antti Palosaari wrote:
> On 16.10.2013 20:33, Michael Krufky wrote:
> > OK, I get it and it does seem OK. I'm just curious what kind of
> > impact this refactoring would have over something like the
> > b2c2-flexcop-fe driver, who does not know which ic's to att
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Antti Palosaari wrote:
> On 16.10.2013 20:19, Michael Krufky wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Jean Delvare wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Michael,
>>>
>>> On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:04:42 -0400, Michael Krufky wrote:
YIKES!! i2c_new_probed_device() does ind
On 16.10.2013 20:19, Michael Krufky wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Jean Delvare wrote:
Hi Michael,
On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:04:42 -0400, Michael Krufky wrote:
YIKES!! i2c_new_probed_device() does indeed probe the hardware --
this is unacceptable, as such an action can damage the ic.
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:04:42 -0400, Michael Krufky wrote:
>> YIKES!! i2c_new_probed_device() does indeed probe the hardware --
>> this is unacceptable, as such an action can damage the ic.
>>
>> Is there some additional inform
Hi Michael,
On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:04:42 -0400, Michael Krufky wrote:
> YIKES!! i2c_new_probed_device() does indeed probe the hardware --
> this is unacceptable, as such an action can damage the ic.
>
> Is there some additional information that I'm missing that lets this
> perform an attach with
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Michael Krufky wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Antti Palosaari wrote:
>> On 16.10.2013 18:54, Michael Krufky wrote:
>>>
>>> This kinda makes me a bit nervous. The patch itself looks OK but the
>>> cascading effects that it will have across the DVB subs
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Antti Palosaari wrote:
> On 16.10.2013 18:54, Michael Krufky wrote:
>>
>> This kinda makes me a bit nervous. The patch itself looks OK but the
>> cascading effects that it will have across the DVB subsystem need to
>> be discussed.
>
>
> Basically, the only effec
On 16.10.2013 18:54, Michael Krufky wrote:
This kinda makes me a bit nervous. The patch itself looks OK but the
cascading effects that it will have across the DVB subsystem need to
be discussed.
Basically, the only effect is that you must use i2c_new_device() or
i2c_new_probed_device() instea
Em Wed, 16 Oct 2013 11:54:57 -0400
Michael Krufky escreveu:
> This kinda makes me a bit nervous. The patch itself looks OK but the
> cascading effects that it will have across the DVB subsystem need to
> be discussed.
>
> Is there a discussion about this kind of conversion on the mailing
> list
This kinda makes me a bit nervous. The patch itself looks OK but the
cascading effects that it will have across the DVB subsystem need to
be discussed.
Is there a discussion about this kind of conversion on the mailing
list somewhere that I've missed?
-Mike
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 7:33 PM, Maur
Em Wed, 16 Oct 2013 01:31:04 +0300
Antti Palosaari escreveu:
> Initial driver conversion from proprietary DVB tuner model to more
> general I2C driver model.
>
> That commit has just basic binding stuff and driver itself still
> needs to be converted more complete later.
>
> Cc: Jean Delvare
>
Initial driver conversion from proprietary DVB tuner model to more
general I2C driver model.
That commit has just basic binding stuff and driver itself still
needs to be converted more complete later.
Cc: Jean Delvare
Signed-off-by: Antti Palosaari
---
drivers/media/tuners/e4000.c|
13 matches
Mail list logo
