On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 08:49:27 AM Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 16/09/15 02:53, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 10:18:32 AM Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >> On 15/09/15 00:15, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> On Monday, September 14, 2015 05:44:01 PM Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >>
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 16/09/15 02:53, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > I've just seen quite a few bugs where a pointer to something completely
> > invalid
> > have been silently passed via (void *) which often results in very
> > interesting
> > breakage (that is really hard t
On 16/09/15 02:53, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 10:18:32 AM Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 15/09/15 00:15, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Monday, September 14, 2015 05:44:01 PM Marc Zyngier wrote:
struct device_node is very much DT specific, and the original authors
>>
On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 10:18:32 AM Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 15/09/15 00:15, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, September 14, 2015 05:44:01 PM Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >> struct device_node is very much DT specific, and the original authors
> >> of the irqdomain subsystem recognized that t
On 15/09/15 11:58, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
> On 14.09.2015 18:44, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> struct device_node is very much DT specific, and the original authors
>> of the irqdomain subsystem recognized that tie, and went as far as
>> mentionning that this could be replaced by some "void *token",
>> sho
On 15.09.2015 14:04, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
Can you folks please do proper quoting on reply? It's annoying to
scroll down 250+ lines to find TWO lines of reply and then have
another 250+ lines for nothing.
Yeah, good point! Sorry.
Tomasz
--
To unsub
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
Can you folks please do proper quoting on reply? It's annoying to
scroll down 250+ lines to find TWO lines of reply and then have
another 250+ lines for nothing.
Here is the real gist of your reply:
> On 14.09.2015 18:44, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > -struct
On 14.09.2015 18:44, Marc Zyngier wrote:
struct device_node is very much DT specific, and the original authors
of the irqdomain subsystem recognized that tie, and went as far as
mentionning that this could be replaced by some "void *token",
should another firmware infrastructure be using it.
As
On 15/09/15 00:15, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, September 14, 2015 05:44:01 PM Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> struct device_node is very much DT specific, and the original authors
>> of the irqdomain subsystem recognized that tie, and went as far as
>> mentionning that this could be replaced by so
On Monday, September 14, 2015 05:44:01 PM Marc Zyngier wrote:
> struct device_node is very much DT specific, and the original authors
> of the irqdomain subsystem recognized that tie, and went as far as
> mentionning that this could be replaced by some "void *token",
> should another firmware infra
struct device_node is very much DT specific, and the original authors
of the irqdomain subsystem recognized that tie, and went as far as
mentionning that this could be replaced by some "void *token",
should another firmware infrastructure be using it.
As we move ACPI on arm64 towards this model to
11 matches
Mail list logo
