On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 08:22:46AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 07 May 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 07:44:05AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > Does Sascha's antidote patch change your opinion? We can use DT to
> > > > > declare critical clocks, and in the rare
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 08:22:46AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
On Thu, 07 May 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 07:44:05AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
Does Sascha's antidote patch change your opinion? We can use DT to
declare critical clocks, and in the rare case of the
On Thu, 07 May 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 07:44:05AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > Does Sascha's antidote patch change your opinion? We can use DT to
> > > > declare critical clocks, and in the rare case of the introduction of a
> > > > new DDRFreq-like feature, which
On Thu, 07 May 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 07:44:05AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
Does Sascha's antidote patch change your opinion? We can use DT to
declare critical clocks, and in the rare case of the introduction of a
new DDRFreq-like feature, which doesn't
On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 07:44:05AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > Does Sascha's antidote patch change your opinion? We can use DT to
> > > declare critical clocks, and in the rare case of the introduction of a
> > > new DDRFreq-like feature, which doesn't adapt the DT will still be
> > > able to
On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 07:44:05AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
Does Sascha's antidote patch change your opinion? We can use DT to
declare critical clocks, and in the rare case of the introduction of a
new DDRFreq-like feature, which doesn't adapt the DT will still be
able to unlock the
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 04:05:49PM -0700, Michael Turquette wrote:
> > > Could you elaborate why you still want to have the clk-always-on in the
> > > device tree instead of in the kernel where it can be removed when
> > > necessary? What's your problem with enabling the critical clocks using
> >
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 04:05:49PM -0700, Michael Turquette wrote:
Could you elaborate why you still want to have the clk-always-on in the
device tree instead of in the kernel where it can be removed when
necessary? What's your problem with enabling the critical clocks using
On Fri, 01 May 2015, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:57:22AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 03:17:51PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 22 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Apr
On Fri, 01 May 2015, Sascha Hauer wrote:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:57:22AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 03:17:51PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
On Wed, 22 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:57:22AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 03:17:51PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > On Wed, 22 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 06:23:44PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > >
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 03:17:51PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 06:23:44PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 08 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed,
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 03:17:51PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
On Wed, 22 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 06:23:44PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
On Wed, 08 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:57:22AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 03:17:51PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
On Wed, 22 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 06:23:44PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
On Wed, 08 Apr
Quoting Lee Jones (2015-04-29 09:07:13)
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, Sascha Hauer wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 03:17:51PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > On Wed, 22 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 06:23:44PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 08 Apr
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 04:11:47PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > This useful binding should be accepted and people should not abuse
> > > it. If they do and the vendor Maintainer's review and
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 03:17:51PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 06:23:44PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > On Wed, 08 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 11:38:32AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > >
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 03:17:51PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 06:23:44PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 08 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed,
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> > This useful binding should be accepted and people should not abuse
> > it. If they do and the vendor Maintainer's review and accept then
> > they have no foundation for recourse.
> >
> > Would
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 03:17:51PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 06:23:44PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > On Wed, 08 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 11:38:32AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > >
Hi Lee,
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> This useful binding should be accepted and people should not abuse
> it. If they do and the vendor Maintainer's review and accept then
> they have no foundation for recourse.
>
> Would you prefer it if I made the warning starker?
On Wed, 22 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 06:23:44PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, 08 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 11:38:32AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 08 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed,
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, Sascha Hauer wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 03:17:51PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
On Wed, 22 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 06:23:44PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
On Wed, 08 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 04:11:47PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
This useful binding should be accepted and people should not abuse
it. If they do and the vendor Maintainer's
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 03:17:51PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
On Wed, 22 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 06:23:44PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
On Wed, 08 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 11:38:32AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
On Wed, 08 Apr
Quoting Lee Jones (2015-04-29 09:07:13)
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, Sascha Hauer wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 03:17:51PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
On Wed, 22 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 06:23:44PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
On Wed, 08 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard
On Wed, 22 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 06:23:44PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
On Wed, 08 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 11:38:32AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
On Wed, 08 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at
Hi Lee,
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
This useful binding should be accepted and people should not abuse
it. If they do and the vendor Maintainer's review and accept then
they have no foundation for recourse.
Would you prefer it if I made the warning
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 03:17:51PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
On Wed, 22 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 06:23:44PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
On Wed, 08 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 11:38:32AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
On Wed, 08 Apr
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
This useful binding should be accepted and people should not abuse
it. If they do and the vendor Maintainer's review and accept then
they have no foundation for recourse.
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 06:23:44PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 11:38:32AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > On Wed, 08 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 09:14:50AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > >
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 06:23:44PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
On Wed, 08 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 11:38:32AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
On Wed, 08 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 09:14:50AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
+
+
On Wed, 08 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 11:38:32AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, 08 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 09:14:50AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + This property is not to be abused.
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 11:38:32AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 09:14:50AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > +
> > > > > + This property is not to be abused. It is only to
> > > > > be used to
> > > > > +
On Wed, 08 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 09:14:50AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > +
> > > > + This property is not to be abused. It is only to
> > > > be used to
> > > > + protect platforms from being crippled by gated
> > > >
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 09:14:50AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > +
> > > + This property is not to be abused. It is only to be used to
> > > + protect platforms from being crippled by gated clocks, not
> > > + as a convenience function to avoid using the
On Tue, 07 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 07:43:59PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones
> > ---
> > .../devicetree/bindings/clock/clock-bindings.txt | 38
> > ++
> > 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git
Hi Lee,
On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 07:43:59PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Lee Jones
> ---
> .../devicetree/bindings/clock/clock-bindings.txt | 38
> ++
> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git
On Wed, 08 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 09:14:50AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
+
+ This property is not to be abused. It is only to
be used to
+ protect platforms from being crippled by gated
clocks, not
+
Hi Lee,
On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 07:43:59PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org
---
.../devicetree/bindings/clock/clock-bindings.txt | 38
++
1 file changed, 38 insertions(+)
diff --git
On Tue, 07 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 07:43:59PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org
---
.../devicetree/bindings/clock/clock-bindings.txt | 38
++
1 file changed, 38 insertions(+)
diff --git
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 09:14:50AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
+
+ This property is not to be abused. It is only to be used to
+ protect platforms from being crippled by gated clocks, not
+ as a convenience function to avoid using the framework
+
On Wed, 08 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 11:38:32AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
On Wed, 08 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 09:14:50AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
+
+ This property is not to be abused. It is only to
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 11:38:32AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
On Wed, 08 Apr 2015, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 09:14:50AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
+
+ This property is not to be abused. It is only to
be used to
+ protect
On 04/07, Lee Jones wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Lee Jones
> ---
Can you please add some commit text here? Why did we make this
change?
> .../devicetree/bindings/clock/clock-bindings.txt | 38
> ++
> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Lee Jones
Please use get_maintainers.pl in the future.
Acked-by: Rob Herring
> ---
> .../devicetree/bindings/clock/clock-bindings.txt | 38
> ++
> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones
---
.../devicetree/bindings/clock/clock-bindings.txt | 38 ++
1 file changed, 38 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/clock-bindings.txt
b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/clock-bindings.txt
index
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org
---
.../devicetree/bindings/clock/clock-bindings.txt | 38 ++
1 file changed, 38 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/clock-bindings.txt
b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/clock-bindings.txt
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org
Please use get_maintainers.pl in the future.
Acked-by: Rob Herring r...@kernel.org
---
.../devicetree/bindings/clock/clock-bindings.txt | 38
++
1
On 04/07, Lee Jones wrote:
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org
---
Can you please add some commit text here? Why did we make this
change?
.../devicetree/bindings/clock/clock-bindings.txt | 38
++
1 file changed, 38 insertions(+)
diff --git
50 matches
Mail list logo