Hello Geert,
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:15 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
wrote:
> Hi Javier,
>
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 9:57 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas
> wrote:
>>> I think we should talk about the same case: Let me repeat what I did:
>>>
>>> 1) I added your patch "eeprom: at24: Add OF device ID tab
Hi Javier,
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 9:57 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas
wrote:
>> I think we should talk about the same case: Let me repeat what I did:
>>
>> 1) I added your patch "eeprom: at24: Add OF device ID table"
>> 2) I added an EEPROM node to an I2C
>>
>> + eeprom@50 {
>> +
>
> I think we should talk about the same case: Let me repeat what I did:
>
> 1) I added your patch "eeprom: at24: Add OF device ID table"
> 2) I added an EEPROM node to an I2C
>
> + eeprom@50 {
> + compatible = "renesas,24c01";
> + reg = <0x50>;
> + };
>
> -
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 06:19:02PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> Hello Wolfram,
>
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> >
> >> I don't have a DT based system at hand now, but I'll test it again and
> >> let you know probably tomorrow.
> >
> > I will try again today,
Hello Wolfram,
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
>> I don't have a DT based system at hand now, but I'll test it again and
>> let you know probably tomorrow.
>
> I will try again today, too. Thanks!
>
Ok, I had some time to do some tests again. I used an ARM Chromebook
(Exy
> I don't have a DT based system at hand now, but I'll test it again and
> let you know probably tomorrow.
I will try again today, too. Thanks!
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hello Wolfram,
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
>> > But there is a dependency, no? If I apply the driver patch,
>> > non-converted device trees will not find their eeproms anymore. So, I
>>
>> I don't think that's correct. If you apply this patch before the DTS
>> changes,
> > But there is a dependency, no? If I apply the driver patch,
> > non-converted device trees will not find their eeproms anymore. So, I
>
> I don't think that's correct. If you apply this patch before the DTS
> changes, the driver will still match using the I2C device ID table
> like it has bee
Hello Wolfram,
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
>> Patches can be applied independently since the DTS changes without driver
>> changes are no-op and the OF table won't be used without the DTS changes.
>
> But there is a dependency, no? If I apply the driver patch,
> non-con
> Patches can be applied independently since the DTS changes without driver
> changes are no-op and the OF table won't be used without the DTS changes.
But there is a dependency, no? If I apply the driver patch,
non-converted device trees will not find their eeproms anymore. So, I
need to wait un
Hello Wolfram,
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 8:54 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas
wrote:
>
> This series is a follow-up to patch [0] that added an OF device ID table
> to the at24 EEPROM driver. As you suggested [1], this version instead of
> adding entries for every used tuple, only adds a single
> entr
Hello Wolfram,
This series is a follow-up to patch [0] that added an OF device ID table
to the at24 EEPROM driver. As you suggested [1], this version instead of
adding entries for every used tuple, only adds a single
entry for each chip type using the "atmel" vendor as a generic fallback.
The fi
12 matches
Mail list logo
