On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 05:00:09PM +, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 18:07:42 +0100, Thierry Reding
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 10:28:38AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > > On 11/09/2012 10:10 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 10:04:56AM -0700,
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 05:00:09PM +, Grant Likely wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 18:07:42 +0100, Thierry Reding
thierry.red...@avionic-design.de wrote:
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 10:28:38AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 11/09/2012 10:10 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 18:07:42 +0100, Thierry Reding
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 10:28:38AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > On 11/09/2012 10:10 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 10:04:56AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > >
> > >> However just FYI, it should not be
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 18:07:42 +0100, Thierry Reding
thierry.red...@avionic-design.de wrote:
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 10:28:38AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 11/09/2012 10:10 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 10:04:56AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
However just FYI, it
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 10:28:38AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 11/09/2012 10:10 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 10:04:56AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >
> >> However just FYI, it should not be necessary for correctness; The
> >> DT matching order is supposed to be
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 10:28:38AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 11/09/2012 10:10 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 10:04:56AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
However just FYI, it should not be necessary for correctness; The
DT matching order is supposed to be driven purely by
On 11/09/2012 10:10 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 10:04:56AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
>
>> However just FYI, it should not be necessary for correctness; The
>> DT matching order is supposed to be driven purely by the order of
>> the compatible values in the DT now, and not
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 10:04:56AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> However just FYI, it should not be necessary for correctness; The DT
> matching order is supposed to be driven purely by the order of the
> compatible values in the DT now, and not affected by the order of values
> in the table.
On 11/09/2012 02:07 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> Sequence compatible list for tegra20-slink driver to first
> look for Tegra30 and then Tegra20. Tegra30 have additional
> feature in HW which need to be utilize if it is provided from DT.
I don't object to this patch.
However just FYI, it should
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 02:37:32PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> Sequence compatible list for tegra20-slink driver to first
> look for Tegra30 and then Tegra20. Tegra30 have additional
> feature in HW which need to be utilize if it is provided from DT.
Applied, thanks.
signature.asc
Sequence compatible list for tegra20-slink driver to first
look for Tegra30 and then Tegra20. Tegra30 have additional
feature in HW which need to be utilize if it is provided from DT.
Signed-off-by: Laxman Dewangan
---
drivers/spi/spi-tegra20-slink.c |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+),
Sequence compatible list for tegra20-slink driver to first
look for Tegra30 and then Tegra20. Tegra30 have additional
feature in HW which need to be utilize if it is provided from DT.
Signed-off-by: Laxman Dewangan ldewan...@nvidia.com
---
drivers/spi/spi-tegra20-slink.c |2 +-
1 files
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 02:37:32PM +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
Sequence compatible list for tegra20-slink driver to first
look for Tegra30 and then Tegra20. Tegra30 have additional
feature in HW which need to be utilize if it is provided from DT.
Applied, thanks.
signature.asc
Description:
On 11/09/2012 02:07 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
Sequence compatible list for tegra20-slink driver to first
look for Tegra30 and then Tegra20. Tegra30 have additional
feature in HW which need to be utilize if it is provided from DT.
I don't object to this patch.
However just FYI, it should not
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 10:04:56AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
However just FYI, it should not be necessary for correctness; The DT
matching order is supposed to be driven purely by the order of the
compatible values in the DT now, and not affected by the order of values
in the table. (This
On 11/09/2012 10:10 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 10:04:56AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
However just FYI, it should not be necessary for correctness; The
DT matching order is supposed to be driven purely by the order of
the compatible values in the DT now, and not affected
16 matches
Mail list logo