Re: [PATCH] i2c: cros_ec: Remove EC_I2C_FLAG_10BIT

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 02:20:06PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > In pointed out that the 10-bit > flag in the cros_ec_tunnel was useless. It went into a 16-bit flags > field but was defined at (1 << 16). > > Since we have no 10-bit i2c devices on the other si

Re: [PATCH] i2c: cros_ec: Remove EC_I2C_FLAG_10BIT

> Thanks, that sounds reasonable to me. Lee has Acked the whole series > and Simon Glass has reviewed it too, so I'd imagine that we're just > waiting on the input subsystem's Ack on a few of the patches. OK. I assume it will go in via the same tree as the cleanup series to simplify dependencies

Re: [PATCH] i2c: cros_ec: Remove EC_I2C_FLAG_10BIT

Wolfram, On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 5:34 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 02:20:06PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: >> In pointed out that the 10-bit >> flag in the cros_ec_tunnel was useless. It went into a 16-bit flags >> field but was defined a

Re: [PATCH] i2c: cros_ec: Remove EC_I2C_FLAG_10BIT

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 02:20:06PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > In pointed out that the 10-bit > flag in the cros_ec_tunnel was useless. It went into a 16-bit flags > field but was defined at (1 << 16). > > Since we have no 10-bit i2c devices on the other si

Re: [PATCH] i2c: cros_ec: Remove EC_I2C_FLAG_10BIT

On 23 June 2014 15:20, Doug Anderson wrote: > In pointed out that the 10-bit > flag in the cros_ec_tunnel was useless. It went into a 16-bit flags > field but was defined at (1 << 16). > > Since we have no 10-bit i2c devices on the other side of the tunnel on

Re: [PATCH] i2c: cros_ec: Remove EC_I2C_FLAG_10BIT

On Mon, 23 Jun 2014, Doug Anderson wrote: > In pointed out that the 10-bit > flag in the cros_ec_tunnel was useless. It went into a 16-bit flags > field but was defined at (1 << 16). > > Since we have no 10-bit i2c devices on the other side of the tunnel on