Am Freitag 23 August 2013, 21:10:00 schrieb Linus Walleij:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Lars Poeschel
wrote:
> > From: Lars Poeschel
> >
> > The device tree property should be more descriptive.
> > microchip seems more reasonable than mcp. As there are no
> > in tree users of this proper
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Lars Poeschel wrote:
> From: Lars Poeschel
>
> The device tree property should be more descriptive.
> microchip seems more reasonable than mcp. As there are no
> in tree users of this property, so the rename can still be
> done without pain.
>
> Signed-off-by: L
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 04:22:10PM +0100, Lars Poeschel wrote:
> On Friday 23 August 2013 at 16:24:21, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:56:17AM +0100, Lars Poeschel wrote:
> > > From: Lars Poeschel
> > >
> > > The device tree property should be more descriptive.
> > > microchip
On Friday 23 August 2013 at 16:24:21, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:56:17AM +0100, Lars Poeschel wrote:
> > From: Lars Poeschel
> >
> > The device tree property should be more descriptive.
> > microchip seems more reasonable than mcp. As there are no
> > in tree users of this p
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:56:17AM +0100, Lars Poeschel wrote:
> From: Lars Poeschel
>
> The device tree property should be more descriptive.
> microchip seems more reasonable than mcp. As there are no
> in tree users of this property, so the rename can still be
> done without pain.
Are there de
From: Lars Poeschel
The device tree property should be more descriptive.
microchip seems more reasonable than mcp. As there are no
in tree users of this property, so the rename can still be
done without pain.
Signed-off-by: Lars Poeschel
---
.../devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-mcp23s08.txt
6 matches
Mail list logo
