On 10/4/19 7:42 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 06:12:52PM +0200, Jean-Jacques Hiblot wrote:
>> On 04/10/2019 17:58, Mark Brown wrote:
>
>>> Regulator supplies are supposed to be defined at the chip level rather
>>> than subfunctions with names corresponding to the names on the
On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 06:12:52PM +0200, Jean-Jacques Hiblot wrote:
> On 04/10/2019 17:58, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Regulator supplies are supposed to be defined at the chip level rather
> > than subfunctions with names corresponding to the names on the chip.
...
> > good chance that they come up
On 04/10/2019 17:58, Mark Brown wrote:
On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 05:13:13PM +0200, Jean-Jacques Hiblot wrote:
On 04/10/2019 16:40, Mark Brown wrote:
Why is the LED core populating anything? Is the LED core copying bits
out of the struct device for the actual device into a synthetic device
On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 05:13:13PM +0200, Jean-Jacques Hiblot wrote:
> On 04/10/2019 16:40, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Why is the LED core populating anything? Is the LED core copying bits
> > out of the struct device for the actual device into a synthetic device
> > rather than passing the actual
On 04/10/2019 16:40, Mark Brown wrote:
On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 03:33:13PM +0200, Jean-Jacques Hiblot wrote:
On 04/10/2019 13:39, Mark Brown wrote:
Consumers should just be able to request a regulator without having to
worry about how that's being provided - they should have no knowledge at
On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 03:33:13PM +0200, Jean-Jacques Hiblot wrote:
> On 04/10/2019 13:39, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Consumers should just be able to request a regulator without having to
> > worry about how that's being provided - they should have no knowledge at
> > all of firmware bindings or
On 04/10/2019 13:39, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 10:27:26PM +0200, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
On 10/3/19 9:41 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
Why would we want to do that? We'd continue to support only DT systems,
just with code that's less obviously DT only and would need to put
checks
On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 10:27:26PM +0200, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
> On 10/3/19 9:41 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Why would we want to do that? We'd continue to support only DT systems,
> > just with code that's less obviously DT only and would need to put
> > checks in. I'm not seeing an upside
On 03/10/2019 22:27, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
On 10/3/19 9:41 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 09:21:06PM +0200, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
On 10/3/19 8:35 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 07:43:17PM +0200, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
On 10/3/19 2:47 PM, Jean-Jacques
On 10/3/19 9:41 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 09:21:06PM +0200, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
>> On 10/3/19 8:35 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 07:43:17PM +0200, Jacek Anaszewski wrote:
On 10/3/19 2:47 PM, Jean-Jacques Hiblot wrote:
> On 03/10/2019 12:42,
10 matches
Mail list logo
