On 29/07/2013 17:09, Richard Genoud wrote:
2013/7/29 boris brezillon :
On 29/07/2013 16:18, Richard Genoud wrote:
2013/7/29 boris brezillon :
On 29/07/2013 10:00, Richard Genoud wrote:
2013/7/26 boris brezillon :
On 26/07/2013 17:44, boris brezillon wrote:
I found 2 bugs:
1) the main frequen
On 29/07/2013 17:09, Richard Genoud wrote:
2013/7/29 boris brezillon :
On 29/07/2013 16:18, Richard Genoud wrote:
2013/7/29 boris brezillon :
On 29/07/2013 10:00, Richard Genoud wrote:
2013/7/26 boris brezillon :
On 26/07/2013 17:44, boris brezillon wrote:
I found 2 bugs:
1) the main frequen
2013/7/29 boris brezillon :
> On 29/07/2013 16:18, Richard Genoud wrote:
>>
>> 2013/7/29 boris brezillon :
>>>
>>> On 29/07/2013 10:00, Richard Genoud wrote:
2013/7/26 boris brezillon :
>
> On 26/07/2013 17:44, boris brezillon wrote:
> I found 2 bugs:
> 1) the main frequen
On 29/07/2013 16:18, Richard Genoud wrote:
2013/7/29 boris brezillon :
On 29/07/2013 10:00, Richard Genoud wrote:
2013/7/26 boris brezillon :
On 26/07/2013 17:44, boris brezillon wrote:
I found 2 bugs:
1) the main frequency ready test in recalc_rate function is wrong
2) the common clk framewor
2013/7/29 boris brezillon :
> On 29/07/2013 10:00, Richard Genoud wrote:
>>
>> 2013/7/26 boris brezillon :
>>>
>>> On 26/07/2013 17:44, boris brezillon wrote:
>>> I found 2 bugs:
>>> 1) the main frequency ready test in recalc_rate function is wrong
>>> 2) the common clk framework uses the first mat
2013/7/26 boris brezillon :
> On 26/07/2013 17:44, boris brezillon wrote:
> I found 2 bugs:
> 1) the main frequency ready test in recalc_rate function is wrong
> 2) the common clk framework uses the first match for dt clk registration
>and main clk has this compatible property:
>compatible
Hello,
This email is a feedback on the discussion I had with Jean-Christophe
last Wednesday.
As discussed with him, I will try to split this patch series in order to
1) limit the number of patches to review
2) limit the number of SoCs/boards to test
The new at91 clk support on non-dt boards
On 26/07/2013 17:44, boris brezillon wrote:
On 26/07/2013 16:10, Richard Genoud wrote:
On 17/07/2013 15:34, Boris BREZILLON wrote:
Hello,
This patch series is a proposal to move at91 clock implementation
to common clk framework.
Most of the clock provided by the PMC (Power Management Controll
On 26/07/2013 16:10, Richard Genoud wrote:
On 17/07/2013 15:34, Boris BREZILLON wrote:
Hello,
This patch series is a proposal to move at91 clock implementation
to common clk framework.
Most of the clock provided by the PMC (Power Management Controller) are
implemented :
- main clock (main osci
On 17/07/2013 15:34, Boris BREZILLON wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This patch series is a proposal to move at91 clock implementation
> to common clk framework.
>
> Most of the clock provided by the PMC (Power Management Controller) are
> implemented :
> - main clock (main oscillator)
> - pll clocks
> - mas
On 17/07/2013 15:34, Boris BREZILLON wrote:
Hello,
This patch series is a proposal to move at91 clock implementation
to common clk framework.
Most of the clock provided by the PMC (Power Management Controller) are
implemented :
- main clock (main oscillator)
- pll clocks
- master clock
- progra
Hello,
This patch series is a proposal to move at91 clock implementation
to common clk framework.
Most of the clock provided by the PMC (Power Management Controller) are
implemented :
- main clock (main oscillator)
- pll clocks
- master clock
- programmable clocks
- utmi clock
- peripheral clocks
12 matches
Mail list logo