On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 01:36:34PM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote:
...
> > > + if (is_of_node(fwn)) {
> > > + if (of_node_cmp(to_of_node(fwn)->name, "ports") == 0)
> > > + fwn = fwnode_get_next_parent(fwn);
> > > + } else {
> > > + /* The "ports" node is always there in
Hi Laurent,
On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 01:54:58PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Sakari,
>
> On Friday 07 Apr 2017 13:36:34 Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 12:44:27PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > On Thursday 06 Apr 2017 16:12:04 Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > > > The
Hi Sakari,
On Friday 07 Apr 2017 13:36:34 Sakari Ailus wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 12:44:27PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Thursday 06 Apr 2017 16:12:04 Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > > The fwnode_handle is a more generic way than OF device_node to describe
> > > firmware nodes. Instead of
Hi Laurent,
On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 12:44:27PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Sakari,
>
> Thank you for the patch.
>
> On Thursday 06 Apr 2017 16:12:04 Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > The fwnode_handle is a more generic way than OF device_node to describe
> > firmware nodes. Instead of the OF API,
Hi Sakari,
Thank you for the patch.
On Thursday 06 Apr 2017 16:12:04 Sakari Ailus wrote:
> The fwnode_handle is a more generic way than OF device_node to describe
> firmware nodes. Instead of the OF API, use more generic fwnode API to
> obtain the same information.
I would mention that this is
The fwnode_handle is a more generic way than OF device_node to describe
firmware nodes. Instead of the OF API, use more generic fwnode API to
obtain the same information.
As the V4L2 fwnode support will be required by a small minority of e.g.
ACPI based systems (the same might actually go for
