On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 08:36:00PM -0400, Sean MacLennan wrote:
>Any update on the status of this patch? This patch was acked by Jean.
>
>The patchwork entry is http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/21576/ and the
>original patch message is below.
Yeah, that's a bit annoying. A case of too many trees
Any update on the status of this patch? This patch was acked by Jean.
The patchwork entry is http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/21576/ and the
original patch message is below.
Cheers,
Sean
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 12:01:59 -0500
Sean MacLennan wrote:
> This is a trivial patch that does not need to
Hi Ben,
On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 14:55:33 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> > Acked-by: Jean Delvare
>
> Jean, you'll take that in your tree or should I take it in mine ?
No, I'm not taking it, i2c-ibm_iic is under Ben Dooks' jurisdiction. So
it's up to either him or you.
--
Jean Delvare
_
> Acked-by: Jean Delvare
Jean, you'll take that in your tree or should I take it in mine ?
Cheers,
Ben.
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 12:01:59 -0500, Sean MacLennan wrote:
> This is a trivial patch that does not need to be in 2.6.29. While
> tracking down an EEPROM problem, I found the messages confusing... it
> looked like the EEPROM was being started before the I2C driver!
>
> Here is an example:
>
> at24 0
This is a trivial patch that does not need to be in 2.6.29. While
tracking down an EEPROM problem, I found the messages confusing... it
looked like the EEPROM was being started before the I2C driver!
Here is an example:
at24 0-0052: 512 byte 24c04 EEPROM (writable)
ibm-iic ef600700.i2c: using sta
