done. We didn't have OMAHA in CVS so now we have both. mds Cam Mayor wrote: > Thank you, Mark! I'm not sure if you got the number I want to add - the > OMAHA listing was an example i took from the linux-arm code. The number i > wanted to add is given below (and is also included in a patch against > linux-2.4.19-rmk5 (and 6) on the arm-linux maintenance site). Please add it > in if this isn't the number you added. (the omaha one is also valid, but i > don't maintain it) > > #define I2C_HW_B_GUIDE 0x15 /* Guide bit-basher */ > > thanks, > cam > > ps. Do you know where Simon Vogel went? Has he disappeared? > > On Sunday 16 February 2003 18:36, Mark D. Studebaker wrote: > >>I checked your ID into i2c CVS. >>It will eventually get submitted to the kernel or feel free to include it >>in one of your patches. mds >> >>Frodo Looijaard wrote: >> >>>Cam Mayor wrote: >>>>From cmayor at iders.ca Wed Jan 29 01:25:05 2003 > > [headers snip] > >>>After lots of digging, I found a lead to the answer to where to find an >>>answer in the place i should have looked but didn't remember - the >>>MAINTAINERS file. >>> >>>Simon, Frodo, do you have an opinion on where i should submit the >>>following: >>> >>>On Tuesday 28 January 2003 17:34, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >>> >>>>On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 05:22:17PM -0600, Cam Mayor wrote: >>>> >>>>>In the file ./include/linux/i2c-id.h >>>>>there is a list of bit-algorithm adapters and their associated >>>>>sequential numbers. >>>>>eg. >>>>> #define I2C_HW_B_OMAHA 0x14 /* Omaha I2C interface >>>>>*/ >>>>> >>>>>Are the numbers allocated in a first-come-first-serve (or >>>>>first-to-propagate-patch-gets-it), or are they allocated in a more >>>>>bureaucratic way? I see nothing listed in ./Documentation/i2c about >>>>>this, and i wish to add our hardware to the list. >>>> >>>>I have no idea; there appears to be no documented method for these IDs. >>> >>>I suspect this device will only be used for ARM linux, as it is >>>bit-bashed from an ARM processor. However, i don't want to have to >>>continually be patching the device number. >>> >>>Russell, it looks like at least two of these allocations are present in >>>the 2.4.19-rmk5 patch, so perhaps i should just submit this patch to you. >>> >>>I've added the two I2C maintainers to the mail to see if they have an >>>opinion on whether i should submit the one-line patch to them or to >>>submit it with the rest of the i2c code that i'm going to submit to the >>>-rmk tree. >>> >>>cheers, >>>cam > >
