On Tue, 2013-07-02 at 11:31 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 03:32:37PM +0530, Ashish Chavan wrote:
>
> > > OK, in that case the CODEC driver is just plain broken then. Did anyone
> > > actually test this stuff? Please fix.
>
> > Yes, I think so. Actually the CODEC driver was
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 03:32:37PM +0530, Ashish Chavan wrote:
> > OK, in that case the CODEC driver is just plain broken then. Did anyone
> > actually test this stuff? Please fix.
> Yes, I think so. Actually the CODEC driver was merged before PMIC ino
> main line and was tested at that time. I
On Tue, 2013-07-02 at 10:31 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 03:01:53PM +0530, Ashish Chavan wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-07-01 at 17:48 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > It seems we have two drivers in mainline for da9055 on I2C. We've got
> > > one in sound/soc/codecs/da9055.c and one
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 03:01:53PM +0530, Ashish Chavan wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-01 at 17:48 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > It seems we have two drivers in mainline for da9055 on I2C. We've got
> > one in sound/soc/codecs/da9055.c and one in drivers/mfd/da9055-i2c.c,
> > both registering themselves
On Mon, 2013-07-01 at 17:48 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> It seems we have two drivers in mainline for da9055 on I2C. We've got
> one in sound/soc/codecs/da9055.c and one in drivers/mfd/da9055-i2c.c,
> both registering themselves identically. What's going on here? Is this
> a combined CODEC and PMI
5 matches
Mail list logo
