Hi Jocke,
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 5:48 PM Joakim Tjernlund
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2018-10-11 at 16:11 +0200, Dirk Eibach wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > we have a 16 bit value here, so we have to define whether bit0(containin
> > the information for IO0.0) is in the first or the second byte. Since the
On Thu, 2018-10-11 at 16:11 +0200, Dirk Eibach wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> we have a 16 bit value here, so we have to define whether bit0(containin the
> information for IO0.0) is in the first or the second byte. Since the PCA9555
> does this encoding little endian, the conversion is allright.
>
Hello,
we have a 16 bit value here, so we have to define whether bit0(containin
the information for IO0.0) is in the first or the second byte. Since the
PCA9555 does this encoding little endian, the conversion is allright.
Cheers
Dirk
Am Do., 11. Okt. 2018 um 07:42 Uhr schrieb Heiko Schocher :
>
Hello Joakim,
Am 10.10.2018 um 19:34 schrieb Joakim Tjernlund:
This commit broke our pca953x usage(on ppc).
I wonder why gpio pins here has an endian, its not a number.
If there must be an endian connected with this, should it not
be a cpu_to_be16 instead, which will retain compatibility ?
This commit broke our pca953x usage(on ppc).
I wonder why gpio pins here has an endian, its not a number.
If there must be an endian connected with this, should it not
be a cpu_to_be16 instead, which will retain compatibility ?
___
U-Boot mailing list
5 matches
Mail list logo
