Hi Nishanth,
On Monday 25 March 2013 11:50 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
Hi Sricharan,
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Sricharan R r.sricha...@ti.com wrote:
All of TWL[46]03[05]_i2c_[write/read]_u8 is doing the same. (ie)
i2c_write(chip_no, reg, 1, val, 1);
i2c_read(chip_no,
On 15:01-20130326, Sricharan R wrote:
approach we will end up creating a new tps659038.h which does exactly
the same thing. This does not feel correct. Can't we differentiate
using register names that are passed instead ?
tps659038/twl6035/twl6037 all belong to palmas family of PMICs. So, how
On Tuesday 26 March 2013 06:55 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
On 15:01-20130326, Sricharan R wrote:
approach we will end up creating a new tps659038.h which does exactly
the same thing. This does not feel correct. Can't we differentiate
using register names that are passed instead ?
Hi Nishanth,
On Saturday 23 March 2013 03:03 AM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
V1: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/227112/
This series helps standardize register parameters for TWL4030, 6030 and 6035
used in various OMAP3,4,5 based platforms.
For historical reasons, we have been following val,
Hi Sricharan,
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Sricharan R r.sricha...@ti.com wrote:
All of TWL[46]03[05]_i2c_[write/read]_u8 is doing the same. (ie)
i2c_write(chip_no, reg, 1, val, 1);
i2c_read(chip_no, reg, 1, val, 1);
We always seem to use 1 byte addresses and length.
V1: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/227112/
This series helps standardize register parameters for TWL4030, 6030 and 6035
used in various OMAP3,4,5 based platforms.
For historical reasons, we have been following val, reg as the order of
parameters while we have reg, val in every other i2c apis
6 matches
Mail list logo
