On Tuesday 19 February 2008, Sean MacLennan wrote:
> I left in the volatiles, since I don't
> understand why they where needed. The memory always seems to be access
> with in_8 and out_8, which are declared volatile. But they could be
> there to fix a very specific bug.
It's very unlikely that
Here is an optional bonus patch that cleans up most of the checkpatch
warnings in the common code. I left in the volatiles, since I don't
understand why they where needed. The memory always seems to be access
with in_8 and out_8, which are declared volatile. But they could be
there to fix a ver
This patch allows the i2c-ibm_iic driver to be built either as an ocp
driver or an of_platform driver. This allows it to run under the powerpc
arch but maintains backward compatibility with the ppc arch.
Cheers,
Sean MacLennan
Signed-off-by: Sean MacLennan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
diff --git
On Tuesday 08 January 2008, Sean MacLennan wrote:
> Let's try again.
Looks good now. Time to send it to the i2c mailing list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and the maintainer Jean Delvare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. And please keep the
linuxppc-dev list on CC.
Thanks.
Ciao,
Stefan
__
Let's try again.
Cheers,
Sean
diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig b/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig
index c466c6c..e9e1493 100644
--- a/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig
@@ -241,7 +241,6 @@ config I2C_PIIX4
config I2C_IBM_IIC
tristate "IBM PPC 4xx on-chip I
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 12:56:27AM -0500, Sean MacLennan wrote:
> Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 21:03:12 -0500 Sean MacLennan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> +static int __devinit iic_probe(struct of_device *ofdev,
> >> + const s
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 00:56:27 -0500 Sean MacLennan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 21:03:12 -0500 Sean MacLennan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Please don't post patches as attachments.
>
> Ok.
Unfortunately, you are using thunderbird and
Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Sean,
>
> On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 21:03:12 -0500 Sean MacLennan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Please don't post patches as attachments.
>
Ok.
>
>> +static int __devinit iic_probe(struct of_device *ofdev,
>> +
Hi Sean,
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 21:03:12 -0500 Sean MacLennan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
Please don't post patches as attachments.
> +static int __devinit iic_probe(struct of_device *ofdev,
> +const struct
> of_device_id *match)
Indenting
Second attempt. I think I have covered all the comments. It now should
work with both ppc and powerpc architectures.
You can now specify fast-mode in the .dts file.
You can now specify an index for each entry. If you don't I try to
chose reasonable defaults. i.e. I keep a static int that is i
Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> If there is a good reason to specify fast or slow mode per board, you may want
> to make that a property in the device node.
>
I tried to add fast_mode to the .dts file and failed.
IIC1: [EMAIL PROTECTED] {
device_type = "i2c";
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 08:18:22PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Saturday 05 January 2008, Sean MacLennan wrote:
> >
> > Ok. The 44x based .dts files do not list 405-iic, so would I think I
> > will add two compatibility matches, one for 405 and one for 440EP. That
> > way I do not break all
On Saturday 05 January 2008, Sean MacLennan wrote:
>
> Ok. The 44x based .dts files do not list 405-iic, so would I think I
> will add two compatibility matches, one for 405 and one for 440EP. That
> way I do not break all the current .dts files. Everybody ok with that?
>
Sounds good. There ar
Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Saturday 05 January 2008, Stefan Roese wrote:
>
>>> This is probably not specific enough. I'm rather sure that someone at IBM
>>> has implemented an i2c chip that this driver doesn't support. Maybe
>>>
>>> .compatible = "ibm,405-iic"
>>>
>>> or similar would be a
Stefan Roese wrote:
>
>> Otherwise, there are two options:
>>
>> 1. duplicate the driver like you suggested
>> 2. make the same driver both a ocp and of_platform, depending on
>> the configuration options.
>>
>> Since most of the driver is untouched by your patch, I'd lean to
>> the second option,
Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Saturday 05 January 2008, Sean MacLennan wrote:
>
>> I converted the i2c-ibm_iic driver from an ocp driver to an of_platform
>> driver. Since this driver is in the kernel.org kernel, should I rename
>> it and keep the old one around? I notice this was done with the em
On Saturday 05 January 2008, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > This is probably not specific enough. I'm rather sure that someone at
> > > IBM has implemented an i2c chip that this driver doesn't support. Maybe
> > >
> > > .compatible = "ibm,405-iic"
> > >
> > > or similar would be a better thing to
On Saturday 05 January 2008, Stefan Roese wrote:
> >
> > This is probably not specific enough. I'm rather sure that someone at IBM
> > has implemented an i2c chip that this driver doesn't support. Maybe
> >
> > .compatible = "ibm,405-iic"
> >
> > or similar would be a better thing to check fo
On Saturday 05 January 2008, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Saturday 05 January 2008, Sean MacLennan wrote:
> > I converted the i2c-ibm_iic driver from an ocp driver to an of_platform
> > driver. Since this driver is in the kernel.org kernel, should I rename
> > it and keep the old one around? I notice
On Saturday 05 January 2008, Sean MacLennan wrote:
> I converted the i2c-ibm_iic driver from an ocp driver to an of_platform
> driver. Since this driver is in the kernel.org kernel, should I rename
> it and keep the old one around? I notice this was done with the emac
> network driver.
The inte
I converted the i2c-ibm_iic driver from an ocp driver to an of_platform
driver. Since this driver is in the kernel.org kernel, should I rename
it and keep the old one around? I notice this was done with the emac
network driver.
This driver is required for the taco platform.
Cheers,
Sean
d
21 matches
Mail list logo
