[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BD2CC46.4060908@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 12:47:34 +0200
From: Florian Tobias Schandinat <FlorianSchandinat@....de>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Harald Welte <laforge@...monks.org>,
Deepak Saxena <dsaxena@...top.org>,
linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org, JosephChan@....com.tw,
ScottFang@...tech.com.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/11] viafb: rework the I2C support in the VIA framebuffer
driver
Florian Tobias Schandinat schrieb:
> Jonathan Corbet schrieb:
>> On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 00:40:39 +0200
>> Florian Tobias Schandinat <FlorianSchandinat@....de> wrote:
>> Meanwhile, I'm a little unsure now...is there an action item for me
>> with regard to the i2c code? I've been staring at it since your last
>> note, but I couldn't find any obvious problems. I do have to say that
>> Harald's rework is far cleaner than what came before...
>
> Well the main question is probably:
> How does it change the behaviour towards the hardware?
> I tend to think that OLPC might not be the only ones who did something
> weird with it....and we already know that we shouldn't trust the
> documentation too much.
I was able to narrow this issue down to the fourth bus. So with
if (i == 4)
continue;
in the bus creation loop I'm able to get a working framebuffer which
does not have the issues mentioned. Any ideas what should be done now?
Thanks,
Florian Tobias Schandinat
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists