Hi,
I've a feeling everyone in this thread is ignoring the
raspberry pi use-case. Where the board is specifically
designed for educational purposes and used with lots of
peripherals which are usually programmed from userspace
using e.g. python bindings for i2c-dev or spidev, for
such a setup we
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 04:14:33PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> On 26 April 2015 at 14:51, Maxime Ripard
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 02:38:18PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> >> On 26 April 2015 at 13:56, Martin Sperl wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 26.04.2015, at 13:23, Hans de Goede
On 26 April 2015 at 14:51, Maxime Ripard
wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 02:38:18PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>> On 26 April 2015 at 13:56, Martin Sperl wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 26.04.2015, at 13:23, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> >> I think there is actual a use for just binding spidev as spidev,
>>
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 02:38:18PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> On 26 April 2015 at 13:56, Martin Sperl wrote:
> >
> >> On 26.04.2015, at 13:23, Hans de Goede wrote:
> >> I think there is actual a use for just binding spidev as spidev,
> >> think e.g. the spi pins on the raspberry pi.
> >>
>
On 26 April 2015 at 13:56, Martin Sperl wrote:
>
>> On 26.04.2015, at 13:23, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> I think there is actual a use for just binding spidev as spidev,
>> think e.g. the spi pins on the raspberry pi.
>>
>> How do you deal we suggest with such a situation ?
>
> I actually asked the
> On 26.04.2015, at 13:23, Hans de Goede wrote:
> I think there is actual a use for just binding spidev as spidev,
> think e.g. the spi pins on the raspberry pi.
>
> How do you deal we suggest with such a situation ?
I actually asked the same question a few days ago on the spi list
(in thread:
On 26 April 2015 at 13:01, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 12:54:36PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>> On 26 April 2015 at 12:32, Mark Brown wrote:
>
>> > No, this is broken - nothing should ever bind to spidev as spidev. The
>> > fact that we have a binding document at all is a
Hi,
On 26-04-15 13:01, Mark Brown wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 12:54:36PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
On 26 April 2015 at 12:32, Mark Brown wrote:
No, this is broken - nothing should ever bind to spidev as spidev. The
fact that we have a binding document at all is a bug.
And how do
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 12:54:36PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> On 26 April 2015 at 12:32, Mark Brown wrote:
> > No, this is broken - nothing should ever bind to spidev as spidev. The
> > fact that we have a binding document at all is a bug.
> And how do you get spidev if nothing binds to
On 26 April 2015 at 12:32, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 11:50:53AM +0100, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>
>> +A spidev example for devicetree binding in a board dts file
>> + {
>
> No, this is broken - nothing should ever bind to spidev as spidev. The
> fact that we have a binding
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 11:50:53AM +0100, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> +A spidev example for devicetree binding in a board dts file
> + {
No, this is broken - nothing should ever bind to spidev as spidev. The
fact that we have a binding document at all is a bug.
signature.asc
Description: Digital
On 26 April 2015 at 16:33, Maxime Ripard
maxime.rip...@free-electrons.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 04:14:33PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
On 26 April 2015 at 14:51, Maxime Ripard
maxime.rip...@free-electrons.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 02:38:18PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 05:33:36PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
On 26 April 2015 at 16:33, Maxime Ripard
maxime.rip...@free-electrons.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 04:14:33PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
On 26 April 2015 at 14:51, Maxime Ripard
maxime.rip...@free-electrons.com
On 26 April 2015 at 14:51, Maxime Ripard
maxime.rip...@free-electrons.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 02:38:18PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
On 26 April 2015 at 13:56, Martin Sperl ker...@martin.sperl.org wrote:
On 26.04.2015, at 13:23, Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com wrote:
I think
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 04:14:33PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
On 26 April 2015 at 14:51, Maxime Ripard
maxime.rip...@free-electrons.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 02:38:18PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
On 26 April 2015 at 13:56, Martin Sperl ker...@martin.sperl.org wrote:
On
Hi,
I've a feeling everyone in this thread is ignoring the
raspberry pi use-case. Where the board is specifically
designed for educational purposes and used with lots of
peripherals which are usually programmed from userspace
using e.g. python bindings for i2c-dev or spidev, for
such a setup we
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 04:40:50PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
I've a feeling everyone in this thread is ignoring the
raspberry pi use-case. Where the board is specifically
designed for educational purposes and used with lots of
peripherals which are usually programmed from userspace
Hi,
On 26-04-15 13:01, Mark Brown wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 12:54:36PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
On 26 April 2015 at 12:32, Mark Brown broo...@kernel.org wrote:
No, this is broken - nothing should ever bind to spidev as spidev. The
fact that we have a binding document at all is a
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 02:38:18PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
On 26 April 2015 at 13:56, Martin Sperl ker...@martin.sperl.org wrote:
On 26.04.2015, at 13:23, Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com wrote:
I think there is actual a use for just binding spidev as spidev,
think e.g. the spi
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 11:50:53AM +0100, Michal Suchanek wrote:
+A spidev example for devicetree binding in a board dts file
+spi2 {
No, this is broken - nothing should ever bind to spidev as spidev. The
fact that we have a binding document at all is a bug.
signature.asc
Description:
On 26 April 2015 at 12:32, Mark Brown broo...@kernel.org wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 11:50:53AM +0100, Michal Suchanek wrote:
+A spidev example for devicetree binding in a board dts file
+spi2 {
No, this is broken - nothing should ever bind to spidev as spidev. The
fact that we have a
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 12:54:36PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
On 26 April 2015 at 12:32, Mark Brown broo...@kernel.org wrote:
No, this is broken - nothing should ever bind to spidev as spidev. The
fact that we have a binding document at all is a bug.
And how do you get spidev if
On 26 April 2015 at 13:01, Mark Brown broo...@kernel.org wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 12:54:36PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
On 26 April 2015 at 12:32, Mark Brown broo...@kernel.org wrote:
No, this is broken - nothing should ever bind to spidev as spidev. The
fact that we have a
On 26.04.2015, at 13:23, Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com wrote:
I think there is actual a use for just binding spidev as spidev,
think e.g. the spi pins on the raspberry pi.
How do you deal we suggest with such a situation ?
I actually asked the same question a few days ago on the spi
On 26 April 2015 at 13:56, Martin Sperl ker...@martin.sperl.org wrote:
On 26.04.2015, at 13:23, Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com wrote:
I think there is actual a use for just binding spidev as spidev,
think e.g. the spi pins on the raspberry pi.
How do you deal we suggest with such a
On 26 April 2015 at 17:54, Maxime Ripard
maxime.rip...@free-electrons.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 05:33:36PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
On 26 April 2015 at 16:33, Maxime Ripard
maxime.rip...@free-electrons.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 04:14:33PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
101 - 126 of 126 matches
Mail list logo