On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 05:08:44AM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Sep 2014 16:28:54 +0100, Graeme Gregory
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 05:17:51PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Monday 01 September 2014 23:06:00 Hanjun Guo wrote:
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> > > > +/*
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 05:08:44AM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
On Mon, 1 Sep 2014 16:28:54 +0100, Graeme Gregory graeme.greg...@linaro.org
wrote:
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 05:17:51PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Monday 01 September 2014 23:06:00 Hanjun Guo wrote:
+#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
On Mon, 1 Sep 2014 16:28:54 +0100, Graeme Gregory
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 05:17:51PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Monday 01 September 2014 23:06:00 Hanjun Guo wrote:
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> > > +/* Configure some sensible defaults for ACPI mode */
> > > +static int
On Mon, 1 Sep 2014 16:28:54 +0100, Graeme Gregory graeme.greg...@linaro.org
wrote:
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 05:17:51PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Monday 01 September 2014 23:06:00 Hanjun Guo wrote:
+#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
+/* Configure some sensible defaults for ACPI mode */
+static
Hi Arnd,
On 09/03/2014 11:09 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 03 September 2014 01:00:23 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> Our intention is specifically not to use "random incompatible bindings"
>> in that. We'd rather have a common venue and process for establishing
>> new bindings for both
Hi Arnd,
On 09/03/2014 11:09 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 03 September 2014 01:00:23 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Our intention is specifically not to use random incompatible bindings
in that. We'd rather have a common venue and process for establishing
new bindings for both DT and
On Wednesday 03 September 2014 01:00:23 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 02, 2014 05:26:06 PM Mark Brown wrote:
> >
> > --s3puAW9DMBtS2ARW
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> > Content-Disposition: inline
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 03:42:53PM +0200, Arnd
On Wednesday 03 September 2014 01:00:23 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tuesday, September 02, 2014 05:26:06 PM Mark Brown wrote:
--s3puAW9DMBtS2ARW
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 03:42:53PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday, September 02, 2014 05:26:06 PM Mark Brown wrote:
>
> --s3puAW9DMBtS2ARW
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Disposition: inline
>
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 03:42:53PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> > The way I recall the discussion, most people were on one
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 03:42:53PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> The way I recall the discussion, most people were on one extreme
> side of the discussion or the other:
> a) We should use _DSD for ARM64 servers to maximize code reuse with
> DT-enabled drivers, work around the slow UEFI
On Tuesday 02 September 2014 14:26:52 Catalin Marinas wrote:
>
> Not much at the KS, I think it will need to be followed up on lkml
> (https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/8/17/10 is the last I'm aware of, not sure
> about any updates in the meantime).
>
> While the above gets sorted, what's the position
On Tuesday 02 September 2014 14:26:52 Catalin Marinas wrote:
Not much at the KS, I think it will need to be followed up on lkml
(https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/8/17/10 is the last I'm aware of, not sure
about any updates in the meantime).
While the above gets sorted, what's the position from
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 03:42:53PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
The way I recall the discussion, most people were on one extreme
side of the discussion or the other:
a) We should use _DSD for ARM64 servers to maximize code reuse with
DT-enabled drivers, work around the slow UEFI
On Tuesday, September 02, 2014 05:26:06 PM Mark Brown wrote:
--s3puAW9DMBtS2ARW
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 03:42:53PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
The way I recall the discussion, most people were on one extreme
side
On 01/09/14 18:14, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 06:08:49PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
On 01/09/14 17:58, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 05:53:33PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
Confused. Then how come smsc911x_drv_probe() has this line:
acpi_handle
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 06:08:49PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On 01/09/14 17:58, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 05:53:33PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >
> >> Confused. Then how come smsc911x_drv_probe() has this line:
> >
> >>acpi_handle *ahandle = ACPI_HANDLE(>dev);
> >
>
Hi Mark,
On 01/09/14 17:58, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 05:53:33PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
Confused. Then how come smsc911x_drv_probe() has this line:
acpi_handle *ahandle = ACPI_HANDLE(>dev);
without any #ifdef's.
There's a stub
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 05:53:33PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 04:28:54PM +0100, Graeme Gregory wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 05:17:51PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Monday 01 September 2014 23:06:00 Hanjun Guo wrote:
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> > > > +/*
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 05:53:33PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> Confused. Then how come smsc911x_drv_probe() has this line:
> acpi_handle *ahandle = ACPI_HANDLE(>dev);
> without any #ifdef's.
There's a stub smsc911x_probe_config_acpi() provided in the non-ACPI
case, Arnd's suggestion
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 04:28:54PM +0100, Graeme Gregory wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 05:17:51PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Monday 01 September 2014 23:06:00 Hanjun Guo wrote:
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> > > +/* Configure some sensible defaults for ACPI mode */
> > > +static int
On Monday 01 September 2014 16:28:54 Graeme Gregory wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 05:17:51PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Monday 01 September 2014 23:06:00 Hanjun Guo wrote:
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> > > +/* Configure some sensible defaults for ACPI mode */
> > > +static int
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 05:17:51PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 01 September 2014 23:06:00 Hanjun Guo wrote:
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> > +/* Configure some sensible defaults for ACPI mode */
> > +static int smsc911x_probe_config_acpi(struct smsc911x_platform_config
> > *config,
> > +
On Monday 01 September 2014 23:06:00 Hanjun Guo wrote:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> +/* Configure some sensible defaults for ACPI mode */
> +static int smsc911x_probe_config_acpi(struct smsc911x_platform_config
> *config,
> + acpi_handle *ahandle)
> +{
> + if
On Monday 01 September 2014 23:06:00 Hanjun Guo wrote:
+#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
+/* Configure some sensible defaults for ACPI mode */
+static int smsc911x_probe_config_acpi(struct smsc911x_platform_config
*config,
+ acpi_handle *ahandle)
+{
+ if
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 05:17:51PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Monday 01 September 2014 23:06:00 Hanjun Guo wrote:
+#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
+/* Configure some sensible defaults for ACPI mode */
+static int smsc911x_probe_config_acpi(struct smsc911x_platform_config
*config,
+
On Monday 01 September 2014 16:28:54 Graeme Gregory wrote:
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 05:17:51PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Monday 01 September 2014 23:06:00 Hanjun Guo wrote:
+#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
+/* Configure some sensible defaults for ACPI mode */
+static int
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 04:28:54PM +0100, Graeme Gregory wrote:
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 05:17:51PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Monday 01 September 2014 23:06:00 Hanjun Guo wrote:
+#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
+/* Configure some sensible defaults for ACPI mode */
+static int
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 05:53:33PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
Confused. Then how come smsc911x_drv_probe() has this line:
acpi_handle *ahandle = ACPI_HANDLE(pdev-dev);
without any #ifdef's.
There's a stub smsc911x_probe_config_acpi() provided in the non-ACPI
case, Arnd's suggestion
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 05:53:33PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 04:28:54PM +0100, Graeme Gregory wrote:
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 05:17:51PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Monday 01 September 2014 23:06:00 Hanjun Guo wrote:
+#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
+/* Configure
Hi Mark,
On 01/09/14 17:58, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 05:53:33PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
Confused. Then how come smsc911x_drv_probe() has this line:
acpi_handle *ahandle = ACPI_HANDLE(pdev-dev);
without any #ifdef's.
There's a stub
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 06:08:49PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
On 01/09/14 17:58, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 05:53:33PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
Confused. Then how come smsc911x_drv_probe() has this line:
acpi_handle *ahandle = ACPI_HANDLE(pdev-dev);
without
On 01/09/14 18:14, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 06:08:49PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
On 01/09/14 17:58, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 05:53:33PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
Confused. Then how come smsc911x_drv_probe() has this line:
acpi_handle
32 matches
Mail list logo