On 02/07/2014 03:49 PM, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
On 07/02/2014 15:43, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 09:24:30AM -0500, Jason Cooper wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:06:08AM -0300, Emilio López wrote:
[snip a great explanation]
Guys, can I get some Tested-by's on this?
In
Hi,
El 07/02/14 15:10, Gregory CLEMENT escribió:
(snip)
---
drivers/clk/mvebu/common.c | 13 +++--
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/clk/mvebu/common.c b/drivers/clk/mvebu/common.c
index 25ceccf..730625b 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/mvebu/common.c
On 07/02/2014 17:16, Emilio López wrote:
> Hi Gregory,
>
> El 07/02/14 12:12, Gregory CLEMENT escribió:
>> On 07/02/2014 16:00, Emilio López wrote:
>>> El 07/02/14 11:49, Gregory CLEMENT escribió:
On 07/02/2014 15:43, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 09:24:30AM -0500,
Hi Gregory,
El 07/02/14 12:12, Gregory CLEMENT escribió:
On 07/02/2014 16:00, Emilio López wrote:
El 07/02/14 11:49, Gregory CLEMENT escribió:
On 07/02/2014 15:43, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 09:24:30AM -0500, Jason Cooper wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:06:08AM -0300,
On 07/02/2014 16:00, Emilio López wrote:
> El 07/02/14 11:49, Gregory CLEMENT escribió:
>> On 07/02/2014 15:43, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 09:24:30AM -0500, Jason Cooper wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:06:08AM -0300, Emilio López wrote:
[snip a great
El 07/02/14 11:49, Gregory CLEMENT escribió:
On 07/02/2014 15:43, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 09:24:30AM -0500, Jason Cooper wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:06:08AM -0300, Emilio López wrote:
[snip a great explanation]
Guys, can I get some Tested-by's on this?
In case
On 07/02/2014 15:43, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 09:24:30AM -0500, Jason Cooper wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:06:08AM -0300, Emilio López wrote:
>>
>> [snip a great explanation]
>>
>> Guys, can I get some Tested-by's on this?
>>
>
> In case someone missed Emilio's
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 09:24:30AM -0500, Jason Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:06:08AM -0300, Emilio López wrote:
>
> [snip a great explanation]
>
> Guys, can I get some Tested-by's on this?
>
In case someone missed Emilio's comment about it, I gave his oneliner
a test on A370
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:06:08AM -0300, Emilio López wrote:
[snip a great explanation]
Guys, can I get some Tested-by's on this?
thx,
Jason.
> -8<--
>
> From ffdb49506e3ce92090c15e1f9b37f4d465097ac1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: =?UTF-8?q?Emilio=20L=C3=B3pez?=
> Date: Thu, 6
Hi all,
El 04/02/14 19:59, Gregory CLEMENT escribió:
Until now the clock providers were initialized in the order found in
the device tree. This led to have the dependencies between the clocks
not respected: children clocks could be initialized before their
parent clocks.
Instead of forcing
Hi all,
El 04/02/14 19:59, Gregory CLEMENT escribió:
Until now the clock providers were initialized in the order found in
the device tree. This led to have the dependencies between the clocks
not respected: children clocks could be initialized before their
parent clocks.
Instead of forcing
On 07/02/2014 15:43, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 09:24:30AM -0500, Jason Cooper wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:06:08AM -0300, Emilio López wrote:
[snip a great explanation]
Guys, can I get some Tested-by's on this?
In case someone missed Emilio's comment about it, I
El 07/02/14 11:49, Gregory CLEMENT escribió:
On 07/02/2014 15:43, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 09:24:30AM -0500, Jason Cooper wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:06:08AM -0300, Emilio López wrote:
[snip a great explanation]
Guys, can I get some Tested-by's on this?
In case
On 07/02/2014 16:00, Emilio López wrote:
El 07/02/14 11:49, Gregory CLEMENT escribió:
On 07/02/2014 15:43, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 09:24:30AM -0500, Jason Cooper wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:06:08AM -0300, Emilio López wrote:
[snip a great explanation]
Guys, can
Hi Gregory,
El 07/02/14 12:12, Gregory CLEMENT escribió:
On 07/02/2014 16:00, Emilio López wrote:
El 07/02/14 11:49, Gregory CLEMENT escribió:
On 07/02/2014 15:43, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 09:24:30AM -0500, Jason Cooper wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:06:08AM -0300,
On 07/02/2014 17:16, Emilio López wrote:
Hi Gregory,
El 07/02/14 12:12, Gregory CLEMENT escribió:
On 07/02/2014 16:00, Emilio López wrote:
El 07/02/14 11:49, Gregory CLEMENT escribió:
On 07/02/2014 15:43, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 09:24:30AM -0500, Jason Cooper wrote:
Hi,
El 07/02/14 15:10, Gregory CLEMENT escribió:
(snip)
---
drivers/clk/mvebu/common.c | 13 +++--
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/clk/mvebu/common.c b/drivers/clk/mvebu/common.c
index 25ceccf..730625b 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/mvebu/common.c
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 09:24:30AM -0500, Jason Cooper wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:06:08AM -0300, Emilio López wrote:
[snip a great explanation]
Guys, can I get some Tested-by's on this?
In case someone missed Emilio's comment about it, I gave his oneliner
a test on A370 Reference
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:06:08AM -0300, Emilio López wrote:
[snip a great explanation]
Guys, can I get some Tested-by's on this?
thx,
Jason.
-8--
From ffdb49506e3ce92090c15e1f9b37f4d465097ac1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Emilio=20L=C3=B3pez?= emi...@elopez.com.ar
On 02/07/2014 03:49 PM, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
On 07/02/2014 15:43, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 09:24:30AM -0500, Jason Cooper wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:06:08AM -0300, Emilio López wrote:
[snip a great explanation]
Guys, can I get some Tested-by's on this?
In
On 02/04/2014 11:59 PM, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
Until now the clock providers were initialized in the order found in
the device tree. This led to have the dependencies between the clocks
not respected: children clocks could be initialized before their
parent clocks.
Instead of forcing each
Hi Greg,
On 04/02/2014 23:59, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
Until now the clock providers were initialized in the order found in
the device tree. This led to have the dependencies between the clocks
not respected: children clocks could be initialized before their
parent clocks.
Instead of forcing
Hi Greg,
On 04/02/2014 23:59, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
Until now the clock providers were initialized in the order found in
the device tree. This led to have the dependencies between the clocks
not respected: children clocks could be initialized before their
parent clocks.
Instead of forcing
On 02/04/2014 11:59 PM, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
Until now the clock providers were initialized in the order found in
the device tree. This led to have the dependencies between the clocks
not respected: children clocks could be initialized before their
parent clocks.
Instead of forcing each
Mike,
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 11:59:26PM +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
> Until now the clock providers were initialized in the order found in
> the device tree. This led to have the dependencies between the clocks
> not respected: children clocks could be initialized before their
> parent clocks.
Until now the clock providers were initialized in the order found in
the device tree. This led to have the dependencies between the clocks
not respected: children clocks could be initialized before their
parent clocks.
Instead of forcing each platform to manage its own initialization order,
this
Until now the clock providers were initialized in the order found in
the device tree. This led to have the dependencies between the clocks
not respected: children clocks could be initialized before their
parent clocks.
Instead of forcing each platform to manage its own initialization order,
this
Mike,
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 11:59:26PM +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
Until now the clock providers were initialized in the order found in
the device tree. This led to have the dependencies between the clocks
not respected: children clocks could be initialized before their
parent clocks.
28 matches
Mail list logo
