Hi Grant,
Thank you for your feedback. I went for solution 2 below temporarily, but
embedding data in the match table could be a better
solution, at least it is contained within the driver, it is a case-by-case
choice. A couple of questions.
- platform_device dynamic allocation. How should the
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 01:47:28PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
I think chip-select addressing should be used if that is the way HW handles
it. If the device is described through a memory-mapping,
ex. snippet follows:
ser...@101f2000 {
compatible = arm,pl011;
reg =
Concerning platform_devices ids, sorry I wasn't meant to report an amba
primecell binding snippet, I wanted to report here just a
binding for a simple memory mapped platform device (not a primecell one). I was
asking that question about platform_device
statically defined structs that use the id
Mitch Bradley wrote:
Mike Rapoport wrote:
Mitch Bradley wrote:
The second topic is the hypothetical use of OFW as a HAL. That will
not happen for several reasons. The opposition to the idea is
widespread and deeply held, and there are good arguments to support
that opposition.
Mitch Bradley wrote:
Mike Rapoport wrote:
Mitch Bradley wrote:
Mike Rapoport wrote:
Mitch Bradley wrote:
The second topic is the hypothetical use of OFW as a HAL. That will
not happen for several reasons. The opposition to the idea is
widespread and deeply held, and there are good
Mitch Bradley wrote:
The second topic is the hypothetical use of OFW as a HAL. That will not
happen for several reasons. The opposition to the idea is widespread
and deeply held, and there are good arguments to support that
opposition. Furthermore, the economic conditions necessary for the
Mitch Bradley wrote:
I'm also objecting the step (b) and, fortunately, it's not yet the
status quo.
Current U-Boot/kernel implementations I've encountered still do not
have OS calls to resident HW access routines. But if such calls would
be allowed, my impression is that SoC vendors would
Mitch Bradley wrote:
Mike Rapoport wrote:
Mitch Bradley wrote:
Mike Rapoport wrote:
Mitch Bradley wrote:
Mike Rapoport wrote:
Mitch Bradley wrote:
The second topic is the hypothetical use of OFW as a HAL. That
will not happen for several reasons. The opposition to the idea
is widespread
On 16 Jun 2010, at 12:41, Jamie Lokier wrote:
Mike Rapoport wrote:
Which of course raises the question: How does the Linux community view
such SoC vendors? Are they embraced and eagerly supported, or (either
openly or secretly) viewed as a nuisance? How does the widespread
objection to
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 10:25 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi
lorenzo.pieral...@arm.com wrote:
Concerning platform_devices ids, sorry I wasn't meant to report an amba
primecell binding snippet, I wanted to report here just a
binding for a simple memory mapped platform device (not a primecell one). I
10 matches
Mail list logo
