On Fri, 2012-08-24 at 18:24 +0900, Alex Courbot wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 August 2012 17:54:20 Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> > And as I said, I don't have any problems with some kind of generic power
> > sequences. So the code in the board file could be moved and converted to
> > use the power sequences,
On Tuesday 21 August 2012 17:54:20 Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> > However this also means we'll essentially just be moving the board code.
>
>
> What do you mean "just"? Wasn't the point of the whole "arm board file
> mess" to get rid of the code from the board files? If the code in the
> board file
On Tuesday 21 August 2012 17:54:20 Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
However this also means we'll essentially just be moving the board code.
What do you mean just? Wasn't the point of the whole arm board file
mess to get rid of the code from the board files? If the code in the
board file is device
On Fri, 2012-08-24 at 18:24 +0900, Alex Courbot wrote:
On Tuesday 21 August 2012 17:54:20 Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
And as I said, I don't have any problems with some kind of generic power
sequences. So the code in the board file could be moved and converted to
use the power sequences, if that
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 05:57:38PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:54:20PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>
> > However, if we already have a generic driver for that type of panel,
> > (which we would need anyway for the DT based approach), the developer
> > only needs to add
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:54:20PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> However, if we already have a generic driver for that type of panel,
> (which we would need anyway for the DT based approach), the developer
> only needs to add the name of the panel and the data for the power
> sequence to the
On Tue, 2012-08-21 at 11:13 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:57:45AM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> > This doesn't mean that we'd have a separate driver for each device. For
> > example, we have a generic panel driver in OMAP, which contains a kind
> > of small panel
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:57:45AM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-08-21 at 10:33 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
>
> > I suppose power sequences aren't needed if you have a specific driver
> > for every panel out there. However that also means that you'd have to
> > write drivers for
On Tue, 2012-08-21 at 10:33 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> I suppose power sequences aren't needed if you have a specific driver
> for every panel out there. However that also means that you'd have to
> write drivers for literally every panel that requires support. In the
> end this will just
On Tuesday 21 August 2012 16:33:30 Thierry Reding wrote:
> I suppose power sequences aren't needed if you have a specific driver
> for every panel out there. However that also means that you'd have to
> write drivers for literally every panel that requires support. In the
> end this will just
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 05:22:12PM +0900, Alex Courbot wrote:
> Hi Tomi,
>
> On Tuesday 21 August 2012 15:44:29 Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> > > +Problem
> > > +---
> > > +One very common board-dependent code is the out-of-driver code that is
> > > used to +turn a device on or off. For instance,
Hi Tomi,
On Tuesday 21 August 2012 15:44:29 Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> > +Problem
> > +---
> > +One very common board-dependent code is the out-of-driver code that is
> > used to +turn a device on or off. For instance, SoC boards very commonly
> > use a GPIO +(abstracted to a regulator or not)
Hi,
On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 15:08 +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> +Problem
> +---
> +One very common board-dependent code is the out-of-driver code that is used
> to
> +turn a device on or off. For instance, SoC boards very commonly use a GPIO
> +(abstracted to a regulator or not) to
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 05:57:38PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:54:20PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
However, if we already have a generic driver for that type of panel,
(which we would need anyway for the DT based approach), the developer
only needs to add the name
Hi,
On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 15:08 +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
+Problem
+---
+One very common board-dependent code is the out-of-driver code that is used
to
+turn a device on or off. For instance, SoC boards very commonly use a GPIO
+(abstracted to a regulator or not) to control the
Hi Tomi,
On Tuesday 21 August 2012 15:44:29 Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
+Problem
+---
+One very common board-dependent code is the out-of-driver code that is
used to +turn a device on or off. For instance, SoC boards very commonly
use a GPIO +(abstracted to a regulator or not) to control
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 05:22:12PM +0900, Alex Courbot wrote:
Hi Tomi,
On Tuesday 21 August 2012 15:44:29 Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
+Problem
+---
+One very common board-dependent code is the out-of-driver code that is
used to +turn a device on or off. For instance, SoC boards very
On Tuesday 21 August 2012 16:33:30 Thierry Reding wrote:
I suppose power sequences aren't needed if you have a specific driver
for every panel out there. However that also means that you'd have to
write drivers for literally every panel that requires support. In the
end this will just result
On Tue, 2012-08-21 at 10:33 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
I suppose power sequences aren't needed if you have a specific driver
for every panel out there. However that also means that you'd have to
write drivers for literally every panel that requires support. In the
end this will just result
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:57:45AM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
On Tue, 2012-08-21 at 10:33 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
I suppose power sequences aren't needed if you have a specific driver
for every panel out there. However that also means that you'd have to
write drivers for literally
On Tue, 2012-08-21 at 11:13 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:57:45AM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
This doesn't mean that we'd have a separate driver for each device. For
example, we have a generic panel driver in OMAP, which contains a kind
of small panel database.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:54:20PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
However, if we already have a generic driver for that type of panel,
(which we would need anyway for the DT based approach), the developer
only needs to add the name of the panel and the data for the power
sequence to the panel
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:10:30AM -1000, Mitch Bradley wrote:
> On 8/16/2012 8:38 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > Device tree bindings shouldn't reference Linux documentation; the
> > bindings are supposed to be OS-agnostic.
> While it is true that bindings should try to be OS-agnostic, there is
On 08/17/2012 03:38 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 08/16/2012 12:08 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
Some device drivers (panel backlights especially) need to follow precise
sequences for powering on and off, involving gpios, regulators, PWMs
with a precise powering order and delays to respect
On 08/17/2012 03:38 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 08/16/2012 12:08 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
Some device drivers (panel backlights especially) need to follow precise
sequences for powering on and off, involving gpios, regulators, PWMs
with a precise powering order and delays to respect
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:10:30AM -1000, Mitch Bradley wrote:
On 8/16/2012 8:38 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
Device tree bindings shouldn't reference Linux documentation; the
bindings are supposed to be OS-agnostic.
While it is true that bindings should try to be OS-agnostic, there is
the
On 8/16/2012 8:38 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 08/16/2012 12:08 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>> Some device drivers (panel backlights especially) need to follow precise
>> sequences for powering on and off, involving gpios, regulators, PWMs
>> with a precise powering order and delays to respect
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:38:33PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 08/16/2012 12:08 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> > diff --git a/Documentation/power/power_seq.txt
> > b/Documentation/power/power_seq.txt
>
> > +Usage by Drivers and Resources Management
> >
On 08/16/2012 12:57 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 08/16/2012 12:47 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:38:33PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>
>>> Note that this somewhat conflicts with accessing the top-level power
>>> sequence by name too; perhaps that should be re-thought too.
On 08/16/2012 12:47 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:38:33PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
>
>> Note that this somewhat conflicts with accessing the top-level power
>> sequence by name too; perhaps that should be re-thought too. I must
>> admit this DT rule kinda sucks.
>
>
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:38:33PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> Note that this somewhat conflicts with accessing the top-level power
> sequence by name too; perhaps that should be re-thought too. I must
> admit this DT rule kinda sucks.
Given that currently the information there is useless and
On 08/16/2012 12:08 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> Some device drivers (panel backlights especially) need to follow precise
> sequences for powering on and off, involving gpios, regulators, PWMs
> with a precise powering order and delays to respect between each steps.
> These sequences are
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 03:08:55PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> + power-off-sequence {
> + step0 {
> + gpio = "enable";
> + disable;
I'd change the name to "reset" or something in the example - avoids
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 07:33:27PM +0900, Alex Courbot wrote:
> On 08/16/2012 06:52 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> >* PGP Signed by an unknown key
> >
> >On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 06:19:08PM +0900, Alex Courbot wrote:
> >>On 08/16/2012 04:42 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> Old Signed by an unknown key
On 08/16/2012 06:52 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
* PGP Signed by an unknown key
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 06:19:08PM +0900, Alex Courbot wrote:
On 08/16/2012 04:42 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
Old Signed by an unknown key
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 03:08:55PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
[...]
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 06:19:08PM +0900, Alex Courbot wrote:
> On 08/16/2012 04:42 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> >* PGP Signed by an unknown key
> >
> >On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 03:08:55PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
[...]
> >>+Usage by Drivers and Resources Management
>
On 08/16/2012 04:42 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
* PGP Signed by an unknown key
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 03:08:55PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
Some device drivers (panel backlights especially) need to follow precise
sequences for powering on and off, involving gpios, regulators, PWMs
with a
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 03:08:55PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> Some device drivers (panel backlights especially) need to follow precise
> sequences for powering on and off, involving gpios, regulators, PWMs
> with a precise powering order and delays to respect between each steps.
> These
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 03:08:55PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
Some device drivers (panel backlights especially) need to follow precise
sequences for powering on and off, involving gpios, regulators, PWMs
with a precise powering order and delays to respect between each steps.
These
On 08/16/2012 04:42 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
* PGP Signed by an unknown key
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 03:08:55PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
Some device drivers (panel backlights especially) need to follow precise
sequences for powering on and off, involving gpios, regulators, PWMs
with a
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 06:19:08PM +0900, Alex Courbot wrote:
On 08/16/2012 04:42 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
* PGP Signed by an unknown key
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 03:08:55PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
[...]
+Usage by Drivers and Resources Management
On 08/16/2012 06:52 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
* PGP Signed by an unknown key
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 06:19:08PM +0900, Alex Courbot wrote:
On 08/16/2012 04:42 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
Old Signed by an unknown key
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 03:08:55PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
[...]
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 07:33:27PM +0900, Alex Courbot wrote:
On 08/16/2012 06:52 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
* PGP Signed by an unknown key
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 06:19:08PM +0900, Alex Courbot wrote:
On 08/16/2012 04:42 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
Old Signed by an unknown key
On Thu, Aug
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 03:08:55PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
+ power-off-sequence {
+ step0 {
+ gpio = enable;
+ disable;
I'd change the name to reset or something in the example - avoids any
On 08/16/2012 12:08 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
Some device drivers (panel backlights especially) need to follow precise
sequences for powering on and off, involving gpios, regulators, PWMs
with a precise powering order and delays to respect between each steps.
These sequences are
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:38:33PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
Note that this somewhat conflicts with accessing the top-level power
sequence by name too; perhaps that should be re-thought too. I must
admit this DT rule kinda sucks.
Given that currently the information there is useless and
On 08/16/2012 12:47 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:38:33PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
Note that this somewhat conflicts with accessing the top-level power
sequence by name too; perhaps that should be re-thought too. I must
admit this DT rule kinda sucks.
Given that
On 08/16/2012 12:57 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 08/16/2012 12:47 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:38:33PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
Note that this somewhat conflicts with accessing the top-level power
sequence by name too; perhaps that should be re-thought too. I must
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:38:33PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 08/16/2012 12:08 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
diff --git a/Documentation/power/power_seq.txt
b/Documentation/power/power_seq.txt
+Usage by Drivers and Resources Management
+-
On 8/16/2012 8:38 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 08/16/2012 12:08 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
Some device drivers (panel backlights especially) need to follow precise
sequences for powering on and off, involving gpios, regulators, PWMs
with a precise powering order and delays to respect between
50 matches
Mail list logo
