[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c321dad0-4c0e-b192-ee93-45359e29f61b@axentia.se>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 09:34:52 +0200
From: Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 00/10] mux controller abstraction and iio/i2c muxes
On 2017-03-27 16:21, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Hi Greg!
>
> Please apply.
>
*snip snip*
> v10 -> v11 changes
> - added a new patch (12) with a fix for messed up error path reported
> by Paul Gortmaker.
Oops, should be Dan Carpenter. Sorry about that...
And, I forgot to high-light this:
> v4 -> v5 changes
> - driver for Analog Devices ADG792A/G, literally the first mux chip
> I found on the Internet with an i2c interface (that was not a
> dedicated i2c multiplexer like PCA9547) which I used to verify
> that the abstractions in the mux core are up to the task. Untested,
> just proof of concept that at least looks pretty and compiles...
Maybe the patches related to adg792 (last two patches in v12) should
not be applied? I don't care much either way, your call Greg...
Cheers,
peda
Powered by blists - more mailing lists