On 10/18/2013 06:49 PM, Michael Bohan wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 04:20:09PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
On 10/18/2013 02:32 PM, Michael Bohan wrote:
My preference is probably straight libfdt calls, but if others
think that unpacking is a better solution, I'm able to go that
route as well. My
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 04:20:09PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On 10/18/2013 02:32 PM, Michael Bohan wrote:
> > My preference is probably straight libfdt calls, but if others
> > think that unpacking is a better solution, I'm able to go that
> > route as well. My only concern there is that we
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 07:38:04PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
Hi Mark,
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 01:44:07AM +0100, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On 10/17/2013 04:51 PM, Michael Bohan wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 09:54:27PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > >> On 10/16/2013 05:27 PM, Michael
On 10/18/2013 02:32 PM, Michael Bohan wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 09:30:32AM -0700, David Daney wrote:
>> On 10/18/2013 08:57 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
>> [...]
>>>
>>> Unflattening is definitely the right
>>> direction to go here.
>>>
>>
>> I wonder if that is really true.
>>
>> The device tree
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 09:30:32AM -0700, David Daney wrote:
> On 10/18/2013 08:57 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> [...]
> >
> >Unflattening is definitely the right
> >direction to go here.
> >
>
> I wonder if that is really true.
>
> The device tree in question is very short lived, and used to control
Hi all,
Guenter, thanks for adding devicetree to Cc.
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 01:44:07AM +0100, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 10/17/2013 04:51 PM, Michael Bohan wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 09:54:27PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >> On 10/16/2013 05:27 PM, Michael Bohan wrote:
> >>> My
On 10/18/2013 08:57 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
[...]
Unflattening is definitely the right
direction to go here.
I wonder if that is really true.
The device tree in question is very short lived, and used to control the
configuration of some hardware device when loading the driver.
The use of
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:57:24AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On 10/18/2013 08:28 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > On Oct 18, 2013, at 5:54 AM, Michael Bohan wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 05:44:07PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >>> On 10/17/2013 04:51 PM, Michael
On 10/18/2013 08:28 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> On Oct 18, 2013, at 5:54 AM, Michael Bohan wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 05:44:07PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> On 10/17/2013 04:51 PM, Michael Bohan wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 09:54:27PM -0700, Guenter Roeck
Hi Michael,
On Oct 18, 2013, at 5:54 AM, Michael Bohan wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 05:44:07PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On 10/17/2013 04:51 PM, Michael Bohan wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 09:54:27PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
Still, what prevents you from unflattening it and
Hi Michael,
On Oct 18, 2013, at 5:54 AM, Michael Bohan wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 05:44:07PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 10/17/2013 04:51 PM, Michael Bohan wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 09:54:27PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
Still, what prevents you from unflattening it and just
On 10/18/2013 08:28 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
Hi Michael,
On Oct 18, 2013, at 5:54 AM, Michael Bohan wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 05:44:07PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 10/17/2013 04:51 PM, Michael Bohan wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 09:54:27PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
Still,
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:57:24AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
On 10/18/2013 08:28 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
Hi Michael,
On Oct 18, 2013, at 5:54 AM, Michael Bohan wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 05:44:07PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 10/17/2013 04:51 PM, Michael Bohan wrote:
On 10/18/2013 08:57 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
[...]
Unflattening is definitely the right
direction to go here.
I wonder if that is really true.
The device tree in question is very short lived, and used to control the
configuration of some hardware device when loading the driver.
The use of
Hi all,
Guenter, thanks for adding devicetree to Cc.
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 01:44:07AM +0100, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 10/17/2013 04:51 PM, Michael Bohan wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 09:54:27PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 10/16/2013 05:27 PM, Michael Bohan wrote:
My motivation is
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 09:30:32AM -0700, David Daney wrote:
On 10/18/2013 08:57 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
[...]
Unflattening is definitely the right
direction to go here.
I wonder if that is really true.
The device tree in question is very short lived, and used to control
the
On 10/18/2013 02:32 PM, Michael Bohan wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 09:30:32AM -0700, David Daney wrote:
On 10/18/2013 08:57 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
[...]
Unflattening is definitely the right
direction to go here.
I wonder if that is really true.
The device tree in question is very
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 07:38:04PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
Hi Mark,
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 01:44:07AM +0100, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 10/17/2013 04:51 PM, Michael Bohan wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 09:54:27PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 10/16/2013 05:27 PM, Michael Bohan wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 04:20:09PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
On 10/18/2013 02:32 PM, Michael Bohan wrote:
My preference is probably straight libfdt calls, but if others
think that unpacking is a better solution, I'm able to go that
route as well. My only concern there is that we provide a
On 10/18/2013 06:49 PM, Michael Bohan wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 04:20:09PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
On 10/18/2013 02:32 PM, Michael Bohan wrote:
My preference is probably straight libfdt calls, but if others
think that unpacking is a better solution, I'm able to go that
route as well. My
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 05:44:07PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 10/17/2013 04:51 PM, Michael Bohan wrote:
> >On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 09:54:27PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >>Still, what prevents you from unflattening it and just using the
> >>normal device tree functions as David suggested ?
On 10/17/2013 04:51 PM, Michael Bohan wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 09:54:27PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 10/16/2013 05:27 PM, Michael Bohan wrote:
My motivation is actually to use the fdt format as a firmware.
I have a requirement to express driver metadata that's loadable
>from the
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 09:54:27PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 10/16/2013 05:27 PM, Michael Bohan wrote:
> >My motivation is actually to use the fdt format as a firmware.
> >I have a requirement to express driver metadata that's loadable
> >from the filesystem. This data is not reasonable to
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 09:54:27PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 10/16/2013 05:27 PM, Michael Bohan wrote:
My motivation is actually to use the fdt format as a firmware.
I have a requirement to express driver metadata that's loadable
from the filesystem. This data is not reasonable to place
On 10/17/2013 04:51 PM, Michael Bohan wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 09:54:27PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 10/16/2013 05:27 PM, Michael Bohan wrote:
My motivation is actually to use the fdt format as a firmware.
I have a requirement to express driver metadata that's loadable
from the
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 05:44:07PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 10/17/2013 04:51 PM, Michael Bohan wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 09:54:27PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
Still, what prevents you from unflattening it and just using the
normal device tree functions as David suggested ?
I'm
On 10/16/2013 05:27 PM, Michael Bohan wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 04:39:03PM -0700, David Daney wrote:
On 10/16/2013 04:27 PM, Michael Bohan wrote:
Ever since the following commit, libfdt has been available for
usage in the kernel:
commit ab25383983fb8d7786696f5371e75e79c3e9a405
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 04:39:03PM -0700, David Daney wrote:
> On 10/16/2013 04:27 PM, Michael Bohan wrote:
> >Ever since the following commit, libfdt has been available for
> >usage in the kernel:
> >
> > commit ab25383983fb8d7786696f5371e75e79c3e9a405
> > Author: David Daney
> >
On 10/16/2013 04:27 PM, Michael Bohan wrote:
Ever since the following commit, libfdt has been available for
usage in the kernel:
commit ab25383983fb8d7786696f5371e75e79c3e9a405
Author: David Daney
Date: Thu Jul 5 18:12:38 2012 +0200
of/lib: Allow scripts/dtc/libfdt
Ever since the following commit, libfdt has been available for
usage in the kernel:
commit ab25383983fb8d7786696f5371e75e79c3e9a405
Author: David Daney
Date: Thu Jul 5 18:12:38 2012 +0200
of/lib: Allow scripts/dtc/libfdt to be used from kernel code
Export these functions
Ever since the following commit, libfdt has been available for
usage in the kernel:
commit ab25383983fb8d7786696f5371e75e79c3e9a405
Author: David Daney david.da...@cavium.com
Date: Thu Jul 5 18:12:38 2012 +0200
of/lib: Allow scripts/dtc/libfdt to be used from kernel code
On 10/16/2013 04:27 PM, Michael Bohan wrote:
Ever since the following commit, libfdt has been available for
usage in the kernel:
commit ab25383983fb8d7786696f5371e75e79c3e9a405
Author: David Daney david.da...@cavium.com
Date: Thu Jul 5 18:12:38 2012 +0200
of/lib:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 04:39:03PM -0700, David Daney wrote:
On 10/16/2013 04:27 PM, Michael Bohan wrote:
Ever since the following commit, libfdt has been available for
usage in the kernel:
commit ab25383983fb8d7786696f5371e75e79c3e9a405
Author: David Daney
On 10/16/2013 05:27 PM, Michael Bohan wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 04:39:03PM -0700, David Daney wrote:
On 10/16/2013 04:27 PM, Michael Bohan wrote:
Ever since the following commit, libfdt has been available for
usage in the kernel:
commit ab25383983fb8d7786696f5371e75e79c3e9a405
34 matches
Mail list logo