[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161014182045.GA1509@katana>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 20:20:45 +0200
From: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: Luis.Oliveira@...opsys.com, jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com,
andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
robh+dt@...nel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
CARLOS.PALMINHA@...opsys.com, Ramiro.Oliveira@...opsys.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] Device bindings documentation updated
ACPI-enabled platforms not currently supported
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 06:30:15PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 05:52:50PM +0100, Luis.Oliveira@...opsys.com wrote:
> > - is_slave = device_property_read_bool(&pdev->dev, "isslave");
>
> Which tree is this based on? I cant see the existing isslave property in
> mainline HEAD (commit 29fbff8698fc0ac1).
Same surprise here. Because I likely would have NAKed the binding.
Why is it needed? Doesn't the driver allow to be master/slave on the
same bus?
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists