On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 23:27:18 +0100, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
wrote:
> On 16:23 Fri 09 Nov , Stephen Warren wrote:
> > On 11/09/2012 09:28 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> > However, I think the process for an end-user needs to be as simple as
> > "drop this .dts/.dtb file into some standard
On 16:23 Fri 09 Nov , Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 11/09/2012 09:28 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Stephen Warren
> > wrote:
> ...
> >> I do rather suspect this use-case is quite common. NVIDIA certainly has
> >> a bunch of development boards with pluggable
> >> PM
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 03:38:18PM +0200, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> Hi Grant,
>
> On Nov 13, 2012, at 2:24 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
[snip]
> My intention wasn't never to make overlays overly portable. My intention
> was to make them in a way
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 10:09:28AM +0200, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On Nov 13, 2012, at 9:25 AM, David Gibson wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 09:52:32AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >> On 11/12/2012 05:10 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> > [snip]
> >>> Oh yes. In fact if one w
Hi Mitch,
On Nov 13, 2012, at 9:09 PM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
> On 11/13/2012 8:29 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 11/13/2012 11:10 AM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
>>> It seems to me that this capebus discussion is missing an important
>>> point. The name capebus suggests that it is a bus, so there shoul
On 11/13/2012 8:29 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 11/13/2012 11:10 AM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
>> It seems to me that this capebus discussion is missing an important
>> point. The name capebus suggests that it is a bus, so there should be a
>> parent node to represent that bus. It should have a driv
On 11/13/2012 11:10 AM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
> It seems to me that this capebus discussion is missing an important
> point. The name capebus suggests that it is a bus, so there should be a
> parent node to represent that bus. It should have a driver whose API
> implements all of the system-interf
It seems to me that this capebus discussion is missing an important
point. The name capebus suggests that it is a bus, so there should be a
parent node to represent that bus. It should have a driver whose API
implements all of the system-interface functions a cape needs.
If you look at the way t
On 11/13/2012 01:09 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> On Nov 13, 2012, at 9:25 AM, David Gibson wrote:
...
>> 1) We annotate the base tree with some extra label information for
>> nodes which overlays are likely to want to reference by phandle. e.g.
>>
>> beaglebone_pic: interrupt-controller@XXX
On 11/13/2012 12:25 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 09:52:32AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 11/12/2012 05:10 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> [snip]
>>> Oh yes. In fact if one was to use a single kernel image for beagleboard
>>> and beaglebone, for the cape to work for both, i
Hi Grant,
On Nov 13, 2012, at 2:24 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
> wrote:
>> On Nov 13, 2012, at 9:25 AM, David Gibson wrote:
>> Not good to rely on userspace kicking off dtc and compiling from source.
>> Some capes/expansion boards might have your
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
wrote:
> On Nov 13, 2012, at 9:25 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> Not good to rely on userspace kicking off dtc and compiling from source.
> Some capes/expansion boards might have your root fs device, for example
> there is an eMMC cape coming up, while
Hi David,
On Nov 13, 2012, at 9:25 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 09:52:32AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 11/12/2012 05:10 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> [snip]
>>> Oh yes. In fact if one was to use a single kernel image for beagleboard
>>> and beaglebone, for the cape to
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:22:07PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 11/12/2012 06:05 PM, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 09:42:37PM +, Grant Likely wrote:
> ...
> > 2) graft bundle
> >
> > The base tree has something like this:
> >
> > ...
> > i2c@XXX {
> >
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 09:52:32AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 11/12/2012 05:10 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
[snip]
> > Oh yes. In fact if one was to use a single kernel image for beagleboard
> > and beaglebone, for the cape to work for both, it is required for it's
> > dtb to be compatible.
On 11/12/2012 06:05 PM, David Gibson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 09:42:37PM +, Grant Likely wrote:
...
> 2) graft bundle
>
> The base tree has something like this:
>
> ...
> i2c@XXX {
> ...
> cape-socket {
> compatible = "vend
Hi Grant,
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>> (2)
>> Also this discussed a while back but at some point is going to brought
>> up again- loading of dt fragment directly from EEPROM and merging at
>> run time. If we were to implement this in kernel, we would have to add
>> cape
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 09:36:26PM -0600, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
> Hi Pantelis,
>
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 2:13 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
> wrote:
>
> Option C: U-Boot loads both the base and overlay FDT files, merges them,
> and passes the resolved tree to the kernel.
>
> >>>
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 09:42:37PM +, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 2:26 AM, David Gibson
> wrote:
> > (3) Resolving phandle references from the subtree to the main tree.
> >
> > So, I think this can actually be avoided, at least in cases where what
> > physical connections are
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 04:40:15PM +0100, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> Hi David,
[snip]
> > I think graft is basically a safer operation, particular if we're
> > doing this at runtime with userspace passing in these fdt fragments.
> > In fact I'd go so far as to say if you really need the full overl
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 09:08:14PM +, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 2:26 AM, David Gibson
> wrote:
> >> Summary points:
> >> - Create an FDT overlay data format and usage model
> >> - SHALL reliable resolve or validate of phandles between base and
> >> overlay trees
> >
>
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
wrote:
> Hi Grant,
>
> Sorry for the late comments, travelling...
>
> On Nov 9, 2012, at 6:28 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Stephen Warren
>> wrote:
>>> On 11/05/2012 01:40 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
Hey folks,
Hi Stephen,
On Nov 12, 2012, at 7:29 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 11/12/2012 10:19 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>> Hi Stephen,
>>
>> On Nov 12, 2012, at 7:10 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/12/2012 10:00 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On Nov 12, 2012, at 6:49
On 11/12/2012 10:19 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On Nov 12, 2012, at 7:10 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>
>> On 11/12/2012 10:00 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>>> Hi Stephen,
>>>
>>> On Nov 12, 2012, at 6:49 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>
On 11/12/2012 04:23 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
Hi Stephen,
On Nov 12, 2012, at 7:10 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 11/12/2012 10:00 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>> Hi Stephen,
>>
>> On Nov 12, 2012, at 6:49 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/12/2012 04:23 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
Hi Grant,
Sorry for the late comments
On 11/12/2012 10:00 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On Nov 12, 2012, at 6:49 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>
>> On 11/12/2012 04:23 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>>> Hi Grant,
>>>
>>> Sorry for the late comments, travelling...
>>>
>>> On Nov 9, 2012, at 6:28 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>> .
Hi Stephen,
On Nov 12, 2012, at 6:49 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 11/12/2012 04:23 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>> Hi Grant,
>>
>> Sorry for the late comments, travelling...
>>
>> On Nov 9, 2012, at 6:28 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> ...
>>> *with the caveat that not all types of changes are a go
On 11/12/2012 05:50 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> Hi Rob.
>
> On Nov 11, 2012, at 10:47 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
>
>> On 11/09/2012 10:28:59 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Stephen Warren
>>> wrote:
On 11/05/2012 01:40 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>>> I'
On 11/12/2012 05:10 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On Nov 10, 2012, at 1:23 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>
>> On 11/09/2012 09:28 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Stephen Warren
>>> wrote:
>> ...
I do rather suspect this use-case is quite common. NV
On 11/12/2012 04:23 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> Hi Grant,
>
> Sorry for the late comments, travelling...
>
> On Nov 9, 2012, at 6:28 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
...
>> *with the caveat that not all types of changes are a good idea and we
>> may disallow. For example, is changing properties in exis
On 11/09/2012 09:28 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 11/05/2012 01:40 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>>> Hey folks,
>>>
>>> As promised, here is my early draft to try and capture what device
>>> tree overlays need to do and how to get there. Comments
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
wrote:
> Hi Grant,
>
> On Nov 9, 2012, at 10:33 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
>> wrote:
>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
Maybe some extra version match table can just b
Hi Rob.
On Nov 11, 2012, at 10:47 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 11/09/2012 10:28:59 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Stephen Warren
>> wrote:
>> > On 11/05/2012 01:40 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>> I'm not actually opposed to it, but it needs to be done in an e
Hi Joel,
Again, sorry for the late reply due to travel.
On Nov 10, 2012, at 5:36 AM, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
> Hi Pantelis,
>
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 2:13 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
> wrote:
>
> Option C: U-Boot loads both the base and overlay FDT files, merges them,
> and passes the
Hi Stephen,
On Nov 10, 2012, at 1:23 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 11/09/2012 09:28 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Stephen Warren
>> wrote:
> ...
>>> I do rather suspect this use-case is quite common. NVIDIA certainly has
>>> a bunch of development boards with plug
Hi Stephen,
On Nov 10, 2012, at 12:57 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 11/08/2012 07:26 PM, David Gibson wrote:
> ...
>> I also think graft will handle most of your use cases, although as I
>> said I don't fully understand the implications of some of them, so I
>> could be wrong. So, the actual in
Hi Grant,
On Nov 9, 2012, at 11:22 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 5:32 AM, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
>> Hi Pantelis,
>>
>> I hope I'm not too late to reply as I'm traveling.
>>
>> On Nov 6, 2012, at 5:30 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
Joanne has purchased
Hi Grant,
On Nov 9, 2012, at 10:33 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
> wrote:
>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
>>> Maybe some extra version match table can just be passed during the board
>>> machine_init
>>>
>>> of_platform_
Hi Grant,
On Nov 9, 2012, at 7:02 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 12:54 AM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
>> On 11/6/2012 12:37 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> This proposal is very oriented at an overlay-based approach. I'm not
>>> totally convinced that a pure overlay approach (as in how
Hi Grant,
Sorry for the late comments, travelling...
On Nov 9, 2012, at 6:28 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 11/05/2012 01:40 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>>> Hey folks,
>>>
>>> As promised, here is my early draft to try and capture what device
Op 5 nov. 2012, om 21:40 heeft Grant Likely het
volgende geschreven:
> Hey folks,
>
> As promised, here is my early draft to try and capture what device
> tree overlays need to do and how to get there. Comments and
> suggestions greatly appreciated.
>
> Device Tree Overlay Feature
>
> Purpos
Op 10 nov. 2012, om 00:40 heeft Grant Likely het
volgende geschreven:
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 11/09/2012 09:28 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Stephen Warren
>>> wrote:
>> ...
I do rather suspect this use-case is quite
On 11/09/2012 10:28:59 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Stephen Warren
wrote:
> On 11/05/2012 01:40 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
I'm not actually opposed to it, but it needs to be done in an elegant
way. The DT data model already imposes more of a conceptual le
Hi Pantelis,
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 2:13 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
wrote:
Option C: U-Boot loads both the base and overlay FDT files, merges them,
and passes the resolved tree to the kernel.
>>>
>>> Could be made to work. Only really required if Joanne wants the
>>> cape interfa
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 8:29 AM, David Gibson
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 12:32:09AM -0500, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
>> Hi Pantelis,
>>
>> I hope I'm not too late to reply as I'm traveling.
>>
>> On Nov 6, 2012, at 5:30 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Joanne has purchased one of Jane'
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 11/09/2012 09:28 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Stephen Warren
>> wrote:
> ...
>>> I do rather suspect this use-case is quite common. NVIDIA certainly has
>>> a bunch of development boards with pluggable
>>>
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 11/05/2012 01:40 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>> As promised, here is my early draft to try and capture what device
>> tree overlays need to do and how to get there. Comments and
>> suggestions greatly appreciated.
>
> Here's one other require
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 11/08/2012 07:26 PM, David Gibson wrote:
> ...
>> I also think graft will handle most of your use cases, although as I
>> said I don't fully understand the implications of some of them, so I
>> could be wrong. So, the actual insertion of
On 11/09/2012 09:28 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
...
>> I do rather suspect this use-case is quite common. NVIDIA certainly has
>> a bunch of development boards with pluggable
>> PMIC/audio/WiFi/display/..., and I believe there's some ability to
On 11/08/2012 07:26 PM, David Gibson wrote:
...
> So, let me take a stab at this from a more bottom-up approach, and see
> if we meet in the middle somewhere. As I discussed in the other
> thread with Daniel Mack, I can see two different operationso on the
> fdt that might be useful in this contex
On 11/05/2012 01:40 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> As promised, here is my early draft to try and capture what device
> tree overlays need to do and how to get there. Comments and
> suggestions greatly appreciated.
Here's one other requirement I'd like that I don't think I saw
explicitly mentioned in y
On 11/08/2012 10:32 PM, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
...
> Alternatively to hashing, reading David Gibson's paper I followed,
> phandle is supposed to 'uniquely' identity node. I wonder why the node
> name itself is not sufficient to uniquely identify. The code that does
> the tree walking can then just
On 11/08/2012 07:26 PM, David Gibson wrote:
...
> I also think graft will handle most of your use cases, although as I
> said I don't fully understand the implications of some of them, so I
> could be wrong. So, the actual insertion of the subtree is pretty
> trivial to implement. phandles are th
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 2:26 AM, David Gibson
wrote:
> (3) Resolving phandle references from the subtree to the main tree.
>
> So, I think this can actually be avoided, at least in cases where what
> physical connections are available to the expansion module is well
> defined. The main causes to h
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 5:32 AM, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
> Hi Pantelis,
>
> I hope I'm not too late to reply as I'm traveling.
>
> On Nov 6, 2012, at 5:30 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
> wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> Joanne has purchased one of Jane's capes and packaged it into a rugged
>>> case for data logging. A
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 2:26 AM, David Gibson
wrote:
>> Summary points:
>> - Create an FDT overlay data format and usage model
>> - SHALL reliable resolve or validate of phandles between base and
>> overlay trees
>
> So, I'm not at all clear on what this proposed phandle validation
> would in
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
>> Maybe some extra version match table can just be passed during the board
>> machine_init
>>
>> of_platform_populate(NULL, omap_dt_match_table, NULL, NULL,
>> panda_version_matc
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
wrote:
> Hi Grant,
>
> On Nov 6, 2012, at 9:45 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>> Yes, the locking does need to be sorted out.
>>
>
> Perhaps come up with a dt-stress test tool/boot time validator?
I would like that. I've started adding DT test cases to t
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 12:54 AM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
> On 11/6/2012 12:37 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> This proposal is very oriented at an overlay-based approach. I'm not
>> totally convinced that a pure overlay approach (as in how dtc does
>> overlayed DT nodes) will be flexible enough, but wou
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 11/05/2012 01:40 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>> Hey folks,
>>
>> As promised, here is my early draft to try and capture what device
>> tree overlays need to do and how to get there. Comments and
>> suggestions greatly appreciated.
>
> Interes
Hi David,
On Nov 9, 2012, at 3:26 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 08:40:30PM +, Grant Likely wrote:
>> Hey folks,
>>
>> As promised, here is my early draft to try and capture what device
>> tree overlays need to do and how to get there. Comments and
>> suggestions greatly a
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 12:32:09AM -0500, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
> Hi Pantelis,
>
> I hope I'm not too late to reply as I'm traveling.
>
> On Nov 6, 2012, at 5:30 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
> wrote:
>
> >> Joanne has purchased one of Jane's capes and packaged it into a rugged
> >> case for data log
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> Hi,
>
> * Tabi Timur-B04825 [121105 13:42]:
>> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Grant Likely
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Jane is building custom BeagleBone expansion boards called 'capes'. She
>> > can boot the system with a stock BeagleBoard device
Hi Pantelis,
I hope I'm not too late to reply as I'm traveling.
On Nov 6, 2012, at 5:30 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
wrote:
>
>>
>> Joanne has purchased one of Jane's capes and packaged it into a rugged
>> case for data logging. As far as Joanne is concerned, the BeagleBone and
>> cape together are a
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 08:40:30PM +, Grant Likely wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> As promised, here is my early draft to try and capture what device
> tree overlays need to do and how to get there. Comments and
> suggestions greatly appreciated.
>
> Device Tree Overlay Feature
Hrm. So, you may yet
On 11/8/2012 3:28 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>
> Op 7 nov. 2012, om 23:35 heeft Ryan Mallon het volgende
> geschreven:
>
>> On 06/11/12 08:40, Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Grant Likely
>>> wrote:
>>>
Jane is building custom BeagleBone expansion boards called 'ca
Koen Kooi wrote:
> And as Pantelis mentioned before, I really don't want my users to change the
> bootloader whenever they add a new LED.
Well, U-Boot does allow you to manipulate the device tree from the
command-line, but I understand that this feature doesn't work that well.
--
Timur Tabi
Lin
Op 7 nov. 2012, om 23:35 heeft Ryan Mallon het volgende
geschreven:
> On 06/11/12 08:40, Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Grant Likely
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Jane is building custom BeagleBone expansion boards called 'capes'. She
>>> can boot the system with a stock Beag
+ Peter
Hi Stephen,
On 11/7/2012 6:25 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 11/07/2012 03:19 AM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
Hi Panto,
On 11/07/2012 09:13 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
Hi Grant
On Nov 6, 2012, at 9:45 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Pantelis Antoniou
wrote:
[ s
On 06/11/12 08:40, Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Grant Likely
> wrote:
>
>> Jane is building custom BeagleBone expansion boards called 'capes'. She
>> can boot the system with a stock BeagleBoard device tree, but additional
>> data is needed before a cape can be used
Hi Stephen,
On Nov 7, 2012, at 6:25 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 11/07/2012 03:19 AM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
>> Hi Panto,
>>
>> On 11/07/2012 09:13 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>>> Hi Grant
>>>
>>> On Nov 6, 2012, at 9:45 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>>>
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Pantel
Hi Stephen,
On Nov 7, 2012, at 6:18 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 11/07/2012 01:47 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>> Hi Stephen,
>>
>> On Nov 6, 2012, at 11:37 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/05/2012 01:40 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
Hey folks,
As promised, here is my early dr
On 11/07/2012 03:19 AM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
> Hi Panto,
>
> On 11/07/2012 09:13 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>> Hi Grant
>>
>> On Nov 6, 2012, at 9:45 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Pantelis Antoniou
>>> wrote:
>>
>> [ snip ]
>>>
>>> g.
>>
>> Since we've started
On 11/07/2012 01:47 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On Nov 6, 2012, at 11:37 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>
>> On 11/05/2012 01:40 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>>> Hey folks,
>>>
>>> As promised, here is my early draft to try and capture what device
>>> tree overlays need to do and how to
On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 09:06 +0100, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> Hi Grant,
>
> On Nov 6, 2012, at 9:45 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Pantelis Antoniou
> > wrote:
> >> On Nov 6, 2012, at 12:14 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Pantelis Ant
Hi Benoit,
On Nov 7, 2012, at 12:12 PM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
> On 11/07/2012 12:02 PM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>> Hi Benoit,
>>
[snip]
>> I don't know if this breaks any conventions but seems to work fine for our
>> case.
>
> Yeah, my main concern with that approach is that you change the
On 11/07/2012 12:02 PM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> Hi Benoit,
>
> On Nov 7, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
>
>> Hi Panto,
>>
>> On 11/07/2012 09:13 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>>> Hi Grant
>>>
>>> On Nov 6, 2012, at 9:45 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>>>
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:34 PM,
Hi Benoit,
On Nov 7, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
> Hi Panto,
>
> On 11/07/2012 09:13 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>> Hi Grant
>>
>> On Nov 6, 2012, at 9:45 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Pantelis Antoniou
>>> wrote:
>>
>> [ snip ]
>>>
>>> g.
>>
Hi Panto,
On 11/07/2012 09:13 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> Hi Grant
>
> On Nov 6, 2012, at 9:45 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Pantelis Antoniou
>> wrote:
>
> [ snip ]
>>
>> g.
>
> Since we've started talking about longer term goals, and the versioning
> provis
Hi Stephen,
On Nov 6, 2012, at 11:37 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 11/05/2012 01:40 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>> Hey folks,
>>
>> As promised, here is my early draft to try and capture what device
>> tree overlays need to do and how to get there. Comments and
>> suggestions greatly appreciated.
>
Hi Grant
On Nov 6, 2012, at 9:45 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Pantelis Antoniou
> wrote:
[ snip ]
>
> g.
Since we've started talking about longer term goals, and the versioning
provision seems to stand, I hope we address how much the fragment versioning
thing is s
Hi Grant,
On Nov 6, 2012, at 9:45 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Pantelis Antoniou
> wrote:
>> On Nov 6, 2012, at 12:14 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
>>> wrote:
For hot-plugging, you need it. Whether kernel code ca
On 11/6/2012 12:37 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 11/05/2012 01:40 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>> Hey folks,
>>
>> As promised, here is my early draft to try and capture what device
>> tree overlays need to do and how to get there. Comments and
>> suggestions greatly appreciated.
>
> Interesting. This
On 11/05/2012 01:40 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> As promised, here is my early draft to try and capture what device
> tree overlays need to do and how to get there. Comments and
> suggestions greatly appreciated.
Interesting. This just came up internally at NVIDIA within the last
coup
On 11/06/2012 12:41 PM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> Hi Russ,
>
> On Nov 6, 2012, at 8:29 PM, Russ Dill wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>>> * Grant Likely [121106 03:16]:
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
wrote:
>
> Another can
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> The back of a napkin calculation indicates that on this platform
> /proc/devicetree costs 76kB and /sys/device-tree costs 60kb. I'm happy
> to see that using /sys instead of /proc appears to be slightly cheaper
> which makes it easier to justif
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Pantelis Antoniou
wrote:
> On Nov 6, 2012, at 12:14 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
>> wrote:
>>> For hot-plugging, you need it. Whether kernel code can deal with
>>> large parts of the DT going away... How about we use
Hi Russ,
On Nov 6, 2012, at 8:29 PM, Russ Dill wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>> * Grant Likely [121106 03:16]:
>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
>>> wrote:
Another can of worms is the pinctrl nodes.
>>>
>>> Yes... new pinctrl da
Hi Grant,
On Nov 6, 2012, at 12:14 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
> wrote:
>> Hi Grant,
>>
>> On Nov 5, 2012, at 9:40 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>>
>>> Hey folks,
>>>
>>> As promised, here is my early draft to try and capture what device
>>> tree ove
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Grant Likely [121106 03:16]:
>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Another can of worms is the pinctrl nodes.
>>
>> Yes... new pinctrl data would need to trigger adding new data to
>> pinctrl. I don't k
* Grant Likely [121106 03:16]:
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
> wrote:
> >
> > Another can of worms is the pinctrl nodes.
>
> Yes... new pinctrl data would need to trigger adding new data to
> pinctrl. I don't know if the pinctrl api supports that.
The actual pins stay the
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
wrote:
> Hi Grant,
>
> On Nov 5, 2012, at 9:40 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>
>> Hey folks,
>>
>> As promised, here is my early draft to try and capture what device
>> tree overlays need to do and how to get there. Comments and
>> suggestions greatly a
Hi Timur,
On Nov 5, 2012, at 10:40 PM, Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Grant Likely
> wrote:
>
>> Jane is building custom BeagleBone expansion boards called 'capes'. She
>> can boot the system with a stock BeagleBoard device tree, but additional
>> data is needed bef
Hi Grant,
On Nov 5, 2012, at 9:40 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> As promised, here is my early draft to try and capture what device
> tree overlays need to do and how to get there. Comments and
> suggestions greatly appreciated.
>
> Device Tree Overlay Feature
>
> Purpose
> ===
>
Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Grant Likely
> wrote:
>
>> Jane is building custom BeagleBone expansion boards called 'capes'.
>She
>> can boot the system with a stock BeagleBoard device tree, but
>additional
>> data is needed before a cape can be used. She could repla
Hi,
* Tabi Timur-B04825 [121105 13:42]:
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Grant Likely
> wrote:
>
> > Jane is building custom BeagleBone expansion boards called 'capes'. She
> > can boot the system with a stock BeagleBoard device tree, but additional
> > data is needed before a cape can be use
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> Jane is building custom BeagleBone expansion boards called 'capes'. She
> can boot the system with a stock BeagleBoard device tree, but additional
> data is needed before a cape can be used. She could replace the FDT file
> used by U-Boot with
Hey folks,
As promised, here is my early draft to try and capture what device
tree overlays need to do and how to get there. Comments and
suggestions greatly appreciated.
Device Tree Overlay Feature
Purpose
===
Sometimes it is not convenient to describe an entire system with a
single FDT. Fo
98 matches
Mail list logo
