On Sep 23, 2008, at 9:12 AM, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
of/base.c matches on the first (most specific) entries, which isn't
quite practical but it was discussed[1] that this won't change.
The bindings specifies verbose information for the devices, but
it doesn't fit in the I2C ID's 20 characters l
On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 11:31:58AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 09:28:31PM +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 03:39:48PM +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > > Any issues with this or the second patch? Can we merge them?
> > > >
> > > > I d
On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 09:28:31PM +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 03:39:48PM +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> [...]
> > > > Any issues with this or the second patch? Can we merge them?
> > >
> > > I do not have the time to review these patches (and, honestly, have no
> > >
On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 03:39:48PM +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
[...]
> > > Any issues with this or the second patch? Can we merge them?
> >
> > I do not have the time to review these patches (and, honestly, have no
> > interest in them.) So I will not merge them but I have no objection to
> > th
On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 01:22:48PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Anton,
>
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:44:24 +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 06:12:19PM +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> > > of/base.c matches on the first (most specific) entries, which isn't
> > > quite practi
Hi Anton,
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:44:24 +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 06:12:19PM +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> > of/base.c matches on the first (most specific) entries, which isn't
> > quite practical but it was discussed[1] that this won't change.
> >
> > The bindings
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 06:12:19PM +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> of/base.c matches on the first (most specific) entries, which isn't
> quite practical but it was discussed[1] that this won't change.
>
> The bindings specifies verbose information for the devices, but
> it doesn't fit in the I2C I
of/base.c matches on the first (most specific) entries, which isn't
quite practical but it was discussed[1] that this won't change.
The bindings specifies verbose information for the devices, but
it doesn't fit in the I2C ID's 20 characters limit. The limit won't
change[2], and the bindings won't
