[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50451016.7010608@antcom.de>
Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 22:16:22 +0200
From: Roland Stigge <stigge@...com.de>
To: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>
CC: Kevin Wells <kevin.wells@....com>,
"vitalywool@...il.com" <vitalywool@...il.com>,
"khali@...ux-fr.org" <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
"ben-linux@...ff.org" <ben-linux@...ff.org>,
"grant.likely@...retlab.ca" <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
"linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Srinivas Bakki <srinivas.bakki@....com>,
"aletes.xgr@...il.com" <aletes.xgr@...il.com>,
"jonsmirl@...il.com" <jonsmirl@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 1/2] i2c: pnx: Fix bit definitions
Hi Wolfram,
On 20/08/12 19:55, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>> I've never had my hands on a PNX4008 chip at NXP, but I do
>> believe they are the same IP. That specific I2C IP was used in a
>> number of NXP/Phillips chips besides the PNX4008/LPC32xx. I don't
>> think there are any PNX4008's in the wild, and even working in
>> NXP, I can't find any non-marketing reference material for that
>> part (including the user manual).
>
> Thanks for the heads up. I'll apply both patches, then.
Should I consider the two patches as applied now (where?
i2c-embedded?), or should I resend? ;-)
Thanks in advance,
Roland
--
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