On 17 Oct 2012, at 14:38, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 15 October 2012, Lee Jones wrote:
>>> and so on. What are you actually missing in the properties that
>>> are already there?
>>
>> MMC_CAP_ERASE
>
> This one seems to be set unconditionally on some controllers but
> not on others. Why
On 17 October 2012 15:38, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 15 October 2012, Lee Jones wrote:
>> > and so on. What are you actually missing in the properties that
>> > are already there?
>>
>> MMC_CAP_ERASE
>
> This one seems to be set unconditionally on some controllers but
> not on others. Why
On Monday 15 October 2012, Lee Jones wrote:
> > and so on. What are you actually missing in the properties that
> > are already there?
>
> MMC_CAP_ERASE
This one seems to be set unconditionally on some controllers but
not on others. Why would it need to be configurable?
> MMC_CAP_UHS_SDR12
>
On Monday 15 October 2012, Lee Jones wrote:
and so on. What are you actually missing in the properties that
are already there?
MMC_CAP_ERASE
This one seems to be set unconditionally on some controllers but
not on others. Why would it need to be configurable?
MMC_CAP_UHS_SDR12
On 17 October 2012 15:38, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Monday 15 October 2012, Lee Jones wrote:
and so on. What are you actually missing in the properties that
are already there?
MMC_CAP_ERASE
This one seems to be set unconditionally on some controllers but
not on others. Why
On 17 Oct 2012, at 14:38, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Monday 15 October 2012, Lee Jones wrote:
and so on. What are you actually missing in the properties that
are already there?
MMC_CAP_ERASE
This one seems to be set unconditionally on some controllers but
not on others. Why
> On Monday 15 October 2012, Lee Jones wrote:
> > Capabilities are an important part of the MMC subsystem. Much
> > supported functionality would be lost if we didn't provide the
> > same level of support when booting Device Tree as we currently
> > do when the subsystem is passed capabilities via
On Monday 15 October 2012, Lee Jones wrote:
> Capabilities are an important part of the MMC subsystem. Much
> supported functionality would be lost if we didn't provide the
> same level of support when booting Device Tree as we currently
> do when the subsystem is passed capabilities via platform
Capabilities are an important part of the MMC subsystem. Much
supported functionality would be lost if we didn't provide the
same level of support when booting Device Tree as we currently
do when the subsystem is passed capabilities via platform data.
This patch supplies this support with one
Capabilities are an important part of the MMC subsystem. Much
supported functionality would be lost if we didn't provide the
same level of support when booting Device Tree as we currently
do when the subsystem is passed capabilities via platform data.
This patch supplies this support with one
On Monday 15 October 2012, Lee Jones wrote:
Capabilities are an important part of the MMC subsystem. Much
supported functionality would be lost if we didn't provide the
same level of support when booting Device Tree as we currently
do when the subsystem is passed capabilities via platform
On Monday 15 October 2012, Lee Jones wrote:
Capabilities are an important part of the MMC subsystem. Much
supported functionality would be lost if we didn't provide the
same level of support when booting Device Tree as we currently
do when the subsystem is passed capabilities via platform
12 matches
Mail list logo
