Hi Michael,
In Rob's reply to you email, he said:
I'd like to move towards dropping 'linux,phandle' including changing
dtc to stop generating both properties by default. Perhaps we should
just be more explicit that we are doing that. Stop exposing it first and
then change how
Hi Michael,
In Rob's reply to you email, he said:
I'd like to move towards dropping 'linux,phandle' including changing
dtc to stop generating both properties by default. Perhaps we should
just be more explicit that we are doing that. Stop exposing it first and
then change how
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 02:57:35PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
> frowand.l...@gmail.com writes:
> > From: Frank Rowand
> >
> > Remove "phandle", "linux,phandle", and "ibm,phandle" properties from
> > the internal device tree. The phandle will still be in
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 02:57:35PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
> frowand.l...@gmail.com writes:
> > From: Frank Rowand
> >
> > Remove "phandle", "linux,phandle", and "ibm,phandle" properties from
> > the internal device tree. The phandle will still be in the struct
> >
adding Ben and Paul.
Hi Michael,
On 06/20/17 21:57, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
> frowand.l...@gmail.com writes:
>> From: Frank Rowand
>>
>> Remove "phandle", "linux,phandle", and "ibm,phandle" properties from
>> the internal device tree. The phandle will
adding Ben and Paul.
Hi Michael,
On 06/20/17 21:57, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
> frowand.l...@gmail.com writes:
>> From: Frank Rowand
>>
>> Remove "phandle", "linux,phandle", and "ibm,phandle" properties from
>> the internal device tree. The phandle will still be in the struct
>>
On 06/20/17 23:18, Frank Rowand wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> Michael has an issue that means this patch series is not OK in the
> current form. I will work on a v7 to see if I can resolve the
> issue.
>
> -Frank
< snip >
Hi Rob,
The issue is in patch 1. Patches 2 - 4 are small independent patches
On 06/20/17 23:18, Frank Rowand wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> Michael has an issue that means this patch series is not OK in the
> current form. I will work on a v7 to see if I can resolve the
> issue.
>
> -Frank
< snip >
Hi Rob,
The issue is in patch 1. Patches 2 - 4 are small independent patches
Hi Rob,
Michael has an issue that means this patch series is not OK in the
current form. I will work on a v7 to see if I can resolve the
issue.
-Frank
On 06/20/17 21:57, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
> frowand.l...@gmail.com writes:
>> From: Frank Rowand
>>
>>
Hi Rob,
Michael has an issue that means this patch series is not OK in the
current form. I will work on a v7 to see if I can resolve the
issue.
-Frank
On 06/20/17 21:57, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
> frowand.l...@gmail.com writes:
>> From: Frank Rowand
>>
>> Remove "phandle",
Hi Frank,
frowand.l...@gmail.com writes:
> From: Frank Rowand
>
> Remove "phandle", "linux,phandle", and "ibm,phandle" properties from
> the internal device tree. The phandle will still be in the struct
> device_node phandle field and will still be displayed as if it is
>
Hi Frank,
frowand.l...@gmail.com writes:
> From: Frank Rowand
>
> Remove "phandle", "linux,phandle", and "ibm,phandle" properties from
> the internal device tree. The phandle will still be in the struct
> device_node phandle field and will still be displayed as if it is
> a property in
From: Frank Rowand
Remove "phandle", "linux,phandle", and "ibm,phandle" properties from
the internal device tree. The phandle will still be in the struct
device_node phandle field and will still be displayed as if it is
a property in /proc/device_tree.
This is to resolve
From: Frank Rowand
Remove "phandle", "linux,phandle", and "ibm,phandle" properties from
the internal device tree. The phandle will still be in the struct
device_node phandle field and will still be displayed as if it is
a property in /proc/device_tree.
This is to resolve the issue found by
14 matches
Mail list logo