| Message ID | 20180122113657.32094-1-peda@axentia.se |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | check I2C device id for pca984x chips | expand |
Hi Peter, Sorry for the late reply. Yes, it's true I have one of the chip. However, my yocto based build system depends on https://github.com/Xilinx/linux-xlnx and it's in version 4.9.0-xilinx-v2017.3. Apparently, there were some bigger changes in i2c core between this version and upstream, thus your patches don't apply. Next week I will try to align only me i2c subdirectory with upstream. Provided it compiles, I will try then to apply and confirm your patches. Regards, Adrian On 22.01.2018 at 12:36, Peter Rosin wrote: > Hi! > > This series tries to check the I2C device id, but instead of open > coding the check in the pca954x driver, I have a new function in > the core doing the work. > > The code is only compile-tested, hence the RFC, and I would really > like a Tested-by: tag from Adrian who presumably have one of these > chips. > > Also, I'm not sure if I should list all manufacturers that I know > about in the header, or if I should settle for the one that is > actually used and leave the others to be added by whomever needs > them... > > Cheers, > peda > > Peter Rosin (2): > i2c: add i2c_get_device_id() to get the standard i2c device id > i2c: mux: pca954x: verify the device id of the pca984x chips > > drivers/i2c/i2c-core-base.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-pca954x.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > include/linux/i2c.h | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 3 files changed, 106 insertions(+) >
On 2018-01-26 17:33, Adrian Fiergolski wrote: > Hi Peter, > > Sorry for the late reply. No problem. > Yes, it's true I have one of the chip. However, my yocto based build system > depends on https://github.com/Xilinx/linux-xlnx and it's in version > 4.9.0-xilinx-v2017.3. > Apparently, there were some bigger changes in i2c core between this > version and > upstream, thus your patches don't apply. I think the core changes fail to apply mostly because of the file renaming that has been going on, and that it should be fairly trivial to adapt. But I don't know for certain... > Next week I will try to align only me i2c subdirectory with upstream. > Provided it compiles, I will > try then to apply and confirm your patches. I'm looking forward to feedback, thanks! Cheers, Peter > Regards, > Adrian > > On 22.01.2018 at 12:36, Peter Rosin wrote: >> Hi! >> >> This series tries to check the I2C device id, but instead of open >> coding the check in the pca954x driver, I have a new function in >> the core doing the work. >> >> The code is only compile-tested, hence the RFC, and I would really >> like a Tested-by: tag from Adrian who presumably have one of these >> chips. >> >> Also, I'm not sure if I should list all manufacturers that I know >> about in the header, or if I should settle for the one that is >> actually used and leave the others to be added by whomever needs >> them... >> >> Cheers, >> peda >> >> Peter Rosin (2): >> i2c: add i2c_get_device_id() to get the standard i2c device id >> i2c: mux: pca954x: verify the device id of the pca984x chips >> >> drivers/i2c/i2c-core-base.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-pca954x.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> include/linux/i2c.h | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 3 files changed, 106 insertions(+) >> >
On 27.01.2018 at 09:37, Peter Rosin wrote: > On 2018-01-26 17:33, Adrian Fiergolski wrote: >> Hi Peter, >> >> Sorry for the late reply. > No problem. > >> Yes, it's true I have one of the chip. However, my yocto based build system >> depends on https://github.com/Xilinx/linux-xlnx and it's in version >> 4.9.0-xilinx-v2017.3. >> Apparently, there were some bigger changes in i2c core between this >> version and >> upstream, thus your patches don't apply. > I think the core changes fail to apply mostly because of the file renaming > that has been going on, and that it should be fairly trivial to adapt. > But I don't know for certain... > >> Next week I will try to align only me i2c subdirectory with upstream. >> Provided it compiles, I will >> try then to apply and confirm your patches. > I'm looking forward to feedback, thanks! > > Cheers, > Peter > >> Regards, >> Adrian >> >> On 22.01.2018 at 12:36, Peter Rosin wrote: >>> Hi! >>> >>> This series tries to check the I2C device id, but instead of open >>> coding the check in the pca954x driver, I have a new function in >>> the core doing the work. >>> >>> The code is only compile-tested, hence the RFC, and I would really >>> like a Tested-by: tag from Adrian who presumably have one of these >>> chips. >>> >>> Also, I'm not sure if I should list all manufacturers that I know >>> about in the header, or if I should settle for the one that is >>> actually used and leave the others to be added by whomever needs >>> them... >>> >>> Cheers, >>> peda >>> >>> Peter Rosin (2): >>> i2c: add i2c_get_device_id() to get the standard i2c device id >>> i2c: mux: pca954x: verify the device id of the pca984x chips >>> >>> drivers/i2c/i2c-core-base.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-pca954x.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> include/linux/i2c.h | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 3 files changed, 106 insertions(+) >>> Hi Peter, I have tested your patch with the pca9846 device and I confirm it works. Moreover, after short debugging, I can confirm that all read ids (manufacture, part and die) seem to be correct. Moreover, in case of misconfiguration, the probe function return a proper message and fails as expected. Regards, Adrian
On 2018-01-29 18:38, Adrian Fiergolski wrote: >>> On 22.01.2018 at 12:36, Peter Rosin wrote: >>>> This series tries to check the I2C device id, but instead of open >>>> coding the check in the pca954x driver, I have a new function in >>>> the core doing the work. >>>> >>>> The code is only compile-tested, hence the RFC, and I would really >>>> like a Tested-by: tag from Adrian who presumably have one of these >>>> chips. >>>> >>>> Also, I'm not sure if I should list all manufacturers that I know >>>> about in the header, or if I should settle for the one that is >>>> actually used and leave the others to be added by whomever needs >>>> them... >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> peda >>>> >>>> Peter Rosin (2): >>>> i2c: add i2c_get_device_id() to get the standard i2c device id >>>> i2c: mux: pca954x: verify the device id of the pca984x chips >>>> >>>> drivers/i2c/i2c-core-base.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> drivers/i2c/muxes/i2c-mux-pca954x.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> include/linux/i2c.h | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> 3 files changed, 106 insertions(+) >>>> > Hi Peter, > > I have tested your patch with the pca9846 device and I confirm it works. > Moreover, after short debugging, I can confirm that all read ids > (manufacture, part and die) seem to be correct. Moreover, in case of > misconfiguration, the probe function return a proper message and fails > as expected. Excellent, thanks! I'll ping Wolfram later on for any input on the core changes (if needed), but let's wait until the 4.16 merge-window closes and things settle down a bit. This will land in 4.17 at the earliest. Cheers, Peter