On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Mike Williamson
michael.william...@criticallink.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Kevin Hilman khil...@deeprootsystems.com
wrote:
Nori, Sekhar nsek...@ti.com writes:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:45:47, Jon Povey wrote:
Steve Chen wrote:
On
How about a generic interface which included claim/free resource
methods, like for gpio, but taking a pointer to a mux resource struct
instead of a gpio number. The mux resource struct would include function
pointers to mach- or soc- specific functions to do the work of checking,
setting and
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 8:17 AM, Steve Chen sc...@mvista.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Mike Williamson
michael.william...@criticallink.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Kevin Hilman khil...@deeprootsystems.com
wrote:
Nori, Sekhar nsek...@ti.com writes:
On Thu,
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 7:17 AM, Mike Williamson
michael.william...@criticallink.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 8:17 AM, Steve Chen sc...@mvista.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Mike Williamson
michael.william...@criticallink.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Kevin
Steve Chen sc...@mvista.com writes:
How about a generic interface which included claim/free resource
methods, like for gpio, but taking a pointer to a mux resource struct
instead of a gpio number. The mux resource struct would include function
pointers to mach- or soc- specific functions to
Mike Williamson michael.william...@criticallink.com writes:
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 8:17 AM, Steve Chen sc...@mvista.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Mike Williamson
michael.william...@criticallink.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Kevin Hilman
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 8:37 AM, Kevin Hilman
khil...@deeprootsystems.com wrote:
Steve Chen sc...@mvista.com writes:
How about a generic interface which included claim/free resource
methods, like for gpio, but taking a pointer to a mux resource struct
instead of a gpio number. The mux
Nori, Sekhar wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 07:47:44, Jon Povey wrote:
- Board init would setup pinmuxing resource structures that could be
passed to drivers, something like gpio, but supporting the different
DaVinci devices (insert handwaving here)
- Device driver can callback to request /
Kevin Hilman wrote:
Nori, Sekhar nsek...@ti.com writes:
I don't think having drivers handle pinmux directly is acceptable at
all.
Correct. Drivers should not do muxing. This should be done by SoC or
board init code. If your bootloader is doing it, that suggests that
it is init-time
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 07:47:44, Jon Povey wrote:
Kevin Hilman wrote:
Nori, Sekhar nsek...@ti.com writes:
I don't think having drivers handle pinmux directly is acceptable at
all.
Correct. Drivers should not do muxing. This should be done by SoC or
board init code. If your
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Kevin Hilman
khil...@deeprootsystems.comwrote:
Nori, Sekhar nsek...@ti.com writes:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:45:47, Jon Povey wrote:
Steve Chen wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 12:49 AM, Jon Povey
jon.po...@racelogic.co.uk wrote:
We have 3
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 12:49 AM, Jon Povey jon.po...@racelogic.co.ukwrote:
I am porting our drivers from MV 2.6.10 kernel to Kevin's git kernel.
We have 3 different boards using DM355, with different gpio / pinmux
setups. So far, our device drivers are modules which fiddle the pinmux
Steve Chen wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 12:49 AM, Jon Povey
jon.po...@racelogic.co.uk wrote:
We have 3 different boards using DM355, with different gpio / pinmux
setups. So far, our device drivers are modules which fiddle the
pinmux registers directly.
At the moment I am thinking that I
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:45:47, Jon Povey wrote:
Steve Chen wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 12:49 AM, Jon Povey
jon.po...@racelogic.co.uk wrote:
We have 3 different boards using DM355, with different gpio / pinmux
setups. So far, our device drivers are modules which fiddle the
pinmux
14 matches
Mail list logo
