21 Jun
2011
21 Jun
'11
2:43 a.m.
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 11:54:32AM -0700, Taylor Hutt wrote:
The base hardware revision of the Maxim 98095 part is 0x40; the code which outputs the revision of the hardware has been updated to properly use uppercase alphabetic values for the revision numbers.
Are you sure that this is true for all devices that might be supported by the driver (I'm guessing there may be other variants)? There's often a drift between silicon and package revisions which gets papered over by datasheets and ignored by drivers.
I checked with hardware engineering and was told 0x40=RevA, 0x41=RevB..
Would a raw value or the use of a 0x3F bit mask be more acceptable?
Peter