From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Brownell Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: max732x: add support for MAX7319, MAX7320-7327 I2C Port Expanders Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 14:42:30 -0700 Message-ID: <200807121442.30693.david-b@pacbell.net> References: <4875A893.3090402@gmail.com> <200807120046.29389.david-b@pacbell.net> <20080712095300.1ba4b3a7@hyperion.delvare> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080712095300.1ba4b3a7-ig7AzVSIIG7kN2dkZ6Wm7A@public.gmane.org> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: i2c-bounces-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: i2c-bounces-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org To: Jean Delvare Cc: Jack Ren , i2c-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org, linux-arm-kernel List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On Saturday 12 July 2008, Jean Delvare wrote: > On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:46:29 -0700, David Brownell wrote: > > On Saturday 12 July 2008, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > > Why not just insist the 0x5x address be registered/probed? This > > > > extra stuff is needless and confusing. > > > > > > Because some of the chips supported by this driver (max7319, max7321, > > > max7322 and max7323) only use address 0x6x. > > > > That's not the behavior implemented here though ... it's always > > creating a dummy, even when it's not needed. > > Did you miss this comment of mine maybe? > http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/i2c/2008-July/004267.html Server not responding; can't tell. Using the MARC.info archive [1] what message is that? Are you disagreeing with what I said? [1] http://marc.info/?t=121567059700001&r=1&w=2 _______________________________________________ i2c mailing list i2c-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c