On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Tony Lindgren t...@atomide.com wrote:
* Shubhrajyoti shubhrajy...@ti.com [120620 06:06]:
On Wednesday 20 June 2012 04:02 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Shubhrajyoti D shubhrajy...@ti.com [120618 07:35]:
From: Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com
The OMAP3530 is based
* Shubhrajyoti D shubhrajy...@ti.com [120618 07:35]:
From: Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com
The OMAP3530 is based upon the same silicon as the OMAP3430 and so the I2C
revision is the same for 3430 and 3530. However, the OMAP3630 device has the
same I2C revision as OMAP4. Correct the revision
On Wednesday 20 June 2012 04:02 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Shubhrajyoti D shubhrajy...@ti.com [120618 07:35]:
From: Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com
The OMAP3530 is based upon the same silicon as the OMAP3430 and so the I2C
revision is the same for 3430 and 3530. However, the OMAP3630 device has
* Shubhrajyoti shubhrajy...@ti.com [120620 06:06]:
On Wednesday 20 June 2012 04:02 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Shubhrajyoti D shubhrajy...@ti.com [120618 07:35]:
From: Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com
The OMAP3530 is based upon the same silicon as the OMAP3430 and so the I2C
revision is the
From: Jon Hunter jon-hun...@ti.com
The OMAP3530 is based upon the same silicon as the OMAP3430 and so the I2C
revision is the same for 3430 and 3530. However, the OMAP3630 device has the
same I2C revision as OMAP4. Correct the revision definition to reflect this.
This patch is based on work done
