On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Mark Brown
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:42:58AM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:19 AM, Mark Brown
>
>> > This and many of your other regulators have voltage ranges specified but
>> > no consumers which doesn't make sense. It looks
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:42:58AM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:19 AM, Mark Brown
> > This and many of your other regulators have voltage ranges specified but
> > no consumers which doesn't make sense. It looks awfully like you've
> > just typed in the maximum range
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:19 AM, Mark Brown
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 04:46:18PM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
>
> Yay for indentation! It'd be good to rewrite your DT so you could cut
> down on that, at the minute it's not good for legibility.
>
>> +
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:19 AM, Mark Brown
broo...@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 04:46:18PM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
Yay for indentation! It'd be good to rewrite your DT so you could cut
down on that, at the minute it's not good for legibility.
+
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:42:58AM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:19 AM, Mark Brown
This and many of your other regulators have voltage ranges specified but
no consumers which doesn't make sense. It looks awfully like you've
just typed in the maximum range supported by
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Mark Brown
broo...@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:42:58AM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:19 AM, Mark Brown
This and many of your other regulators have voltage ranges specified but
no consumers which doesn't
By the way just as an example, a board with the following could be
configured on i.MX53 without touching any IOMUX settings at all
besides DDR (which would get done at boot rom time through the dcd);
* Keypad (KPP)
* 24-bit Parallel display on IPU DI0
* GPIO6&7 pins 22 through 31, GPIO4 10
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 09:26:36AM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
> If you really think it's necessary then fine, we'll do it.
>
Yes, please do.
--
Regards,
Shawn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Shawn Guo wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 08:36:02AM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
>> Requiring it breaks the entire concept of the device tree to describe running
>> hardware. It is not a configuration script. pinctrl should be optional
>> - built in
>> always, but
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 08:36:02AM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
> Requiring it breaks the entire concept of the device tree to describe running
> hardware. It is not a configuration script. pinctrl should be optional
> - built in
> always, but not necessary to turn a board on if it's already
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Shawn Guo wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 09:29:39AM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
>> The reason the new kernel depends on the new U-Boot is we're trying to
>> do all pinmux configuration in U-Boot (and we do in-house, and it
>> works). No pinctrl stuff in the kernel
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Shawn Guo shawn@linaro.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 09:29:39AM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
The reason the new kernel depends on the new U-Boot is we're trying to
do all pinmux configuration in U-Boot (and we do in-house, and it
works). No pinctrl stuff
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 08:36:02AM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
Requiring it breaks the entire concept of the device tree to describe running
hardware. It is not a configuration script. pinctrl should be optional
- built in
always, but not necessary to turn a board on if it's already configured.
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Shawn Guo shawn@linaro.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 08:36:02AM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
Requiring it breaks the entire concept of the device tree to describe running
hardware. It is not a configuration script. pinctrl should be optional
- built in
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 09:26:36AM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
If you really think it's necessary then fine, we'll do it.
Yes, please do.
--
Regards,
Shawn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More
By the way just as an example, a board with the following could be
configured on i.MX53 without touching any IOMUX settings at all
besides DDR (which would get done at boot rom time through the dcd);
* Keypad (KPP)
* 24-bit Parallel display on IPU DI0
* GPIO67 pins 22 through 31, GPIO4 10 through
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 09:29:39AM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
> The reason the new kernel depends on the new U-Boot is we're trying to
> do all pinmux configuration in U-Boot (and we do in-house, and it
> works). No pinctrl stuff in the kernel or device tree is required at
> this point. The Old
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> Matt,
>
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Matt Sealey wrote:
>
> ...
>> or any setup at all for this. What's stopping this right now is you
>> need a new U-Boot which we
>> didn't release or mainline because we are still testing it (old
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 08:40:36AM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
> The reason they're set like that is legacy - that's how they're set up
> in a kernel
> (pre-DT) that we know works. Most of those ranges are directly from the
> Babbage
> reference and stay like that in the Babbage DT too - so
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:19 AM, Mark Brown
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 04:46:18PM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
>
> Yay for indentation! It'd be good to rewrite your DT so you could cut
> down on that, at the minute it's not good for legibility.
>
>> +
On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 04:46:18PM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
Yay for indentation! It'd be good to rewrite your DT so you could cut
down on that, at the minute it's not good for legibility.
> + sw1_reg: sw1 {
> +
On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 04:46:18PM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
Yay for indentation! It'd be good to rewrite your DT so you could cut
down on that, at the minute it's not good for legibility.
+ sw1_reg: sw1 {
+
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:19 AM, Mark Brown
broo...@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 04:46:18PM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
Yay for indentation! It'd be good to rewrite your DT so you could cut
down on that, at the minute it's not good for legibility.
+
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 08:40:36AM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
The reason they're set like that is legacy - that's how they're set up
in a kernel
(pre-DT) that we know works. Most of those ranges are directly from the
Babbage
reference and stay like that in the Babbage DT too - so there's
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Fabio Estevam feste...@gmail.com wrote:
Matt,
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Matt Sealey m...@genesi-usa.com wrote:
...
or any setup at all for this. What's stopping this right now is you
need a new U-Boot which we
didn't release or mainline because we are
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 09:29:39AM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
The reason the new kernel depends on the new U-Boot is we're trying to
do all pinmux configuration in U-Boot (and we do in-house, and it
works). No pinctrl stuff in the kernel or device tree is required at
this point. The Old Kernel
Matt,
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Matt Sealey wrote:
...
> or any setup at all for this. What's stopping this right now is you
> need a new U-Boot which we
> didn't release or mainline because we are still testing it (old U-Boot
> shipped on the boards
> cannot boot device tree anyway).
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Shawn Guo wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 04:46:18PM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
>> This device tree only supports the final retail board ("TO3").
>>
>> It is currently feature equivalent to the MX51 Babbage device tree. The
>> following features have been tested
On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 04:46:18PM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
> This device tree only supports the final retail board ("TO3").
>
> It is currently feature equivalent to the MX51 Babbage device tree. The
> following features have been tested and work as well as can be expected:
>
> * Serial port
>
On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 04:46:18PM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
This device tree only supports the final retail board (TO3).
It is currently feature equivalent to the MX51 Babbage device tree. The
following features have been tested and work as well as can be expected:
* Serial port
* SD
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Shawn Guo shawn@linaro.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 04:46:18PM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
This device tree only supports the final retail board (TO3).
It is currently feature equivalent to the MX51 Babbage device tree. The
following features have been
Matt,
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Matt Sealey m...@genesi-usa.com wrote:
...
or any setup at all for this. What's stopping this right now is you
need a new U-Boot which we
didn't release or mainline because we are still testing it (old U-Boot
shipped on the boards
cannot boot device
This device tree only supports the final retail board ("TO3").
It is currently feature equivalent to the MX51 Babbage device tree. The
following features have been tested and work as well as can be expected:
* Serial port
* SD card support
* I2C bus
* SGTL5000 audio support via the internal
This device tree only supports the final retail board (TO3).
It is currently feature equivalent to the MX51 Babbage device tree. The
following features have been tested and work as well as can be expected:
* Serial port
* SD card support
* I2C bus
* SGTL5000 audio support via the internal
34 matches
Mail list logo
