On Friday 26 September 2014 09:48:24 Joachim Eastwood wrote:
> On 26 September 2014 09:16, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Friday 26 September 2014 07:34:12 Joachim Eastwood wrote:
> >> I am working on Cortex-M4 no-MMU platform that isn't upstream yet, btw.
> >>
> >
> > Sorry for drifting off-topic,
On 26 September 2014 09:16, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 26 September 2014 07:34:12 Joachim Eastwood wrote:
>> I am working on Cortex-M4 no-MMU platform that isn't upstream yet, btw.
>>
>
> Sorry for drifting off-topic, but this is very interesting to me. Can you
> say which one you are
On Friday 26 September 2014 07:34:12 Joachim Eastwood wrote:
> I am working on Cortex-M4 no-MMU platform that isn't upstream yet, btw.
>
Sorry for drifting off-topic, but this is very interesting to me. Can you
say which one you are working on and what your timeline is for submitting
it
On Friday 26 September 2014 10:58:33 Pankaj Dubey wrote:
> On Thursday, September 25, 2014 6:12 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote,
> > I don't remember noticing the of_find_device_by_node or
> > platform_device_alloc in
> > earlier versions of this patch, but that could just be me failing to read
> > it
On Friday 26 September 2014 10:58:33 Pankaj Dubey wrote:
On Thursday, September 25, 2014 6:12 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote,
I don't remember noticing the of_find_device_by_node or
platform_device_alloc in
earlier versions of this patch, but that could just be me failing to read
it right.
On Friday 26 September 2014 07:34:12 Joachim Eastwood wrote:
I am working on Cortex-M4 no-MMU platform that isn't upstream yet, btw.
Sorry for drifting off-topic, but this is very interesting to me. Can you
say which one you are working on and what your timeline is for submitting
it upstream?
On 26 September 2014 09:16, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Friday 26 September 2014 07:34:12 Joachim Eastwood wrote:
I am working on Cortex-M4 no-MMU platform that isn't upstream yet, btw.
Sorry for drifting off-topic, but this is very interesting to me. Can you
say which one you are
On Friday 26 September 2014 09:48:24 Joachim Eastwood wrote:
On 26 September 2014 09:16, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Friday 26 September 2014 07:34:12 Joachim Eastwood wrote:
I am working on Cortex-M4 no-MMU platform that isn't upstream yet, btw.
Sorry for drifting off-topic,
m; li.xi...@freescale.com; vikas.saj...@samsung.com;
>> chow@samsung.com; lee.jo...@linaro.org; diand...@chromium.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] mfd: syscon: Decouple syscon interface from
> platform
>> devices
>>
>> Am Mittwoch, 24. September 2014, 20:35:10 schrie
On Thursday, September 25, 2014 6:12 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote,
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] mfd: syscon: Decouple syscon interface from
platform
> devices
>
> On Tuesday 23 September 2014 15:59:43 Pankaj Dubey wrote:
> > > > -static int syscon_match_node(struct
aro.org; diand...@chromium.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] mfd: syscon: Decouple syscon interface from
platform
> devices
>
> Am Mittwoch, 24. September 2014, 20:35:10 schrieb Heiko Stübner:
> > Hi Pankaj, Joachim,
> >
> > Am Dienstag, 23. September 2014, 20:12:50 schrieb Joac
On Tuesday 23 September 2014 15:59:43 Pankaj Dubey wrote:
> > > -static int syscon_match_node(struct device *dev, void *data)
> > > +static struct syscon *of_syscon_register(struct device_node *np)
> > > {
> > > - struct device_node *dn = data;
> > > + struct platform_device *pdev = NULL;
> >
Am Mittwoch, 24. September 2014, 20:35:10 schrieb Heiko Stübner:
> Hi Pankaj, Joachim,
>
> Am Dienstag, 23. September 2014, 20:12:50 schrieb Joachim Eastwood:
> > On 22 September 2014 06:40, Pankaj Dubey wrote:
> > > Currently a syscon entity can be only registered directly through a
> > >
: [PATCH v5] mfd: syscon: Decouple syscon interface from
platform
devices
Am Mittwoch, 24. September 2014, 20:35:10 schrieb Heiko Stübner:
Hi Pankaj, Joachim,
Am Dienstag, 23. September 2014, 20:12:50 schrieb Joachim Eastwood:
On 22 September 2014 06:40, Pankaj Dubey pankaj.du...@samsung.com
On Thursday, September 25, 2014 6:12 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] mfd: syscon: Decouple syscon interface from
platform
devices
On Tuesday 23 September 2014 15:59:43 Pankaj Dubey wrote:
-static int syscon_match_node(struct device *dev, void *data)
+static struct
@samsung.com; lee.jo...@linaro.org; diand...@chromium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] mfd: syscon: Decouple syscon interface from
platform
devices
Am Mittwoch, 24. September 2014, 20:35:10 schrieb Heiko Stübner:
Hi Pankaj, Joachim,
Am Dienstag, 23. September 2014, 20:12:50 schrieb Joachim
Am Mittwoch, 24. September 2014, 20:35:10 schrieb Heiko Stübner:
Hi Pankaj, Joachim,
Am Dienstag, 23. September 2014, 20:12:50 schrieb Joachim Eastwood:
On 22 September 2014 06:40, Pankaj Dubey pankaj.du...@samsung.com wrote:
Currently a syscon entity can be only registered directly
On Tuesday 23 September 2014 15:59:43 Pankaj Dubey wrote:
-static int syscon_match_node(struct device *dev, void *data)
+static struct syscon *of_syscon_register(struct device_node *np)
{
- struct device_node *dn = data;
+ struct platform_device *pdev = NULL;
+ struct
Hi Pankaj, Joachim,
Am Dienstag, 23. September 2014, 20:12:50 schrieb Joachim Eastwood:
> On 22 September 2014 06:40, Pankaj Dubey wrote:
> > Currently a syscon entity can be only registered directly through a
> > platform device that binds to a dedicated syscon driver. However in
> > certain
Hi Pankaj, Joachim,
Am Dienstag, 23. September 2014, 20:12:50 schrieb Joachim Eastwood:
On 22 September 2014 06:40, Pankaj Dubey pankaj.du...@samsung.com wrote:
Currently a syscon entity can be only registered directly through a
platform device that binds to a dedicated syscon driver.
On 22 September 2014 06:40, Pankaj Dubey wrote:
> Currently a syscon entity can be only registered directly through a
> platform device that binds to a dedicated syscon driver. However in
> certain use cases it is desirable to make a device used with another
> driver a syscon interface provider.
Hi Dong,
On Monday, September 22, 2014, Dong Aisheng wrote,
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:10:07AM +0530, Pankaj Dubey wrote:
[snip]
> > -static int syscon_match_node(struct device *dev, void *data)
> > +static struct syscon *of_syscon_register(struct device_node *np)
> > {
> > - struct
Hi Dong,
On Monday, September 22, 2014, Dong Aisheng wrote,
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:10:07AM +0530, Pankaj Dubey wrote:
[snip]
-static int syscon_match_node(struct device *dev, void *data)
+static struct syscon *of_syscon_register(struct device_node *np)
{
- struct device_node *dn
On 22 September 2014 06:40, Pankaj Dubey pankaj.du...@samsung.com wrote:
Currently a syscon entity can be only registered directly through a
platform device that binds to a dedicated syscon driver. However in
certain use cases it is desirable to make a device used with another
driver a syscon
Hi,
[...]
> +static struct regmap_config syscon_regmap_config = {
> + .reg_bits = 32,
> + .val_bits = 32,
> + .reg_stride = 4,
> };
>
> -static int syscon_match_node(struct device *dev, void *data)
> +static struct syscon *of_syscon_register(struct device_node *np)
> {
> -
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:10:07AM +0530, Pankaj Dubey wrote:
> Currently a syscon entity can be only registered directly through a
> platform device that binds to a dedicated syscon driver. However in
> certain use cases it is desirable to make a device used with another
> driver a syscon
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:10:07AM +0530, Pankaj Dubey wrote:
Currently a syscon entity can be only registered directly through a
platform device that binds to a dedicated syscon driver. However in
certain use cases it is desirable to make a device used with another
driver a syscon interface
Hi,
[...]
+static struct regmap_config syscon_regmap_config = {
+ .reg_bits = 32,
+ .val_bits = 32,
+ .reg_stride = 4,
};
-static int syscon_match_node(struct device *dev, void *data)
+static struct syscon *of_syscon_register(struct device_node *np)
{
- struct
Currently a syscon entity can be only registered directly through a
platform device that binds to a dedicated syscon driver. However in
certain use cases it is desirable to make a device used with another
driver a syscon interface provider.
For example, certain SoCs (e.g. Exynos) contain system
Currently a syscon entity can be only registered directly through a
platform device that binds to a dedicated syscon driver. However in
certain use cases it is desirable to make a device used with another
driver a syscon interface provider.
For example, certain SoCs (e.g. Exynos) contain system
30 matches
Mail list logo
