On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 03:23:54PM -0700, Ellen Wang wrote:
When doing an I2C_SMBUS_BYTE write (one byte write, no address),
the data to be written is in "command" not "data->byte".
Signed-off-by: Ellen Wang <redacted>
Acked-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa-z923LK4zBo2bacvFa/9K2g@public.gmane.org>
Wow, that driver seems to be largely untested. Thanks for cleaning it
up! Sidenote: i2c drivers should really be in drivers/i2c ;)
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015, Ellen Wang wrote:
When doing an I2C_SMBUS_BYTE write (one byte write, no address),
the data to be written is in "command" not "data->byte".
Signed-off-by: Ellen Wang <redacted>
---
Forgot signed-off-by tag last time, sorry.
Applied to for-4.3/cp2112.
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015, Wolfram Sang wrote:
Wow, that driver seems to be largely untested. Thanks for cleaning it
up! Sidenote: i2c drivers should really be in drivers/i2c ;)
Well, it's sometimes a bit on the borderline where HID drivers should live
(because they often, in addition to HID layer, make use of some other
transport). If you want to move it under your wings, please send a patch
that moves it and I'll Ack it.
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
On 07/14/2015 05:54 AM, Jiri Kosina wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015, Ellen Wang wrote:
quoted
When doing an I2C_SMBUS_BYTE write (one byte write, no address),
the data to be written is in "command" not "data->byte".
Signed-off-by: Ellen Wang <redacted>
---
Forgot signed-off-by tag last time, sorry.
Applied to for-4.3/cp2112.
Would it be possible to consider it for stable, as well as the other
recent commits (6debce6f4e787a8eb4cec94e7afa85fb4f40db27 and
5ddfb12e90c73cf86881345be422e09c367f6981)?
Thanks!