[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100820221145.GM3650@sortiz-mobl>
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 00:11:46 +0200
From: Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>
To: Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@...ia.com>
Cc: "ext Gopinath, Thara" <thara@...com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] mfd: twl-core: switch over to defines in twl.h
Hi Felipe,
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:16:19AM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 09:10:22AM +0200, Balbi Felipe (Nokia-MS/Helsinki) wrote:
> >On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 09:03:44AM +0200, ext Gopinath, Thara wrote:
> >>>>No I am not talking about the key values. I was talking about the register offset
> >>>>for TWL4030_PM_MASTER_PROTECT_KEY. My question is, is it ok for it to be 0xd or 0xe.
> >>>>Earlier we were using 0xd and in the new implementation it has been changed to 0xe.
> >>
> >>Typo. Earlier we were using 0xe and in the new implementation it has
> >>been changed to 0xd.
> >
> >you're right, I'm not sure how I came up with that value since the TRM
> >shows 0x0e, maybe a copy&paste error. Will change patch 1.
>
> ok, it's because there's no register 0x0a. And I missed that when
> defined the register space. Good catch, thanks.
Should I expect a new patch then ?
Cheers,
Samuel.
--
Intel Open Source Technology Centre
http://oss.intel.com/
--
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