On 04/12/2013 11:12 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 11:04:51AM +0200, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
>> On 04/12/2013 08:54 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 06:26:07PM +0200, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
On 04/11/2013 11:19 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
>
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 11:04:51AM +0200, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
> On 04/12/2013 08:54 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 06:26:07PM +0200, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
> >> On 04/11/2013 11:19 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> >>> Hi Gregory,
> >>>
> >>> Since there doesn't seem to
On 04/12/2013 08:54 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 06:26:07PM +0200, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
>> On 04/11/2013 11:19 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
>>> Hi Gregory,
>>>
>>> Since there doesn't seem to be anyone opposing this feature I just
>>> checked your patch and after adding
On 04/12/2013 08:54 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 06:26:07PM +0200, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
>> On 04/11/2013 11:19 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
>>> Hi Gregory,
>>>
>>> Since there doesn't seem to be anyone opposing this feature I just
>>> checked your patch and after adding
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 06:26:07PM +0200, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
> On 04/11/2013 11:19 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> > Hi Gregory,
> >
> > Since there doesn't seem to be anyone opposing this feature I just
> > checked your patch and after adding the CLK_OF_DECLARE macro in the end
> > it works
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 06:26:07PM +0200, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
On 04/11/2013 11:19 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
Hi Gregory,
Since there doesn't seem to be anyone opposing this feature I just
checked your patch and after adding the CLK_OF_DECLARE macro in the end
it works well for us.
On 04/12/2013 08:54 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 06:26:07PM +0200, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
On 04/11/2013 11:19 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
Hi Gregory,
Since there doesn't seem to be anyone opposing this feature I just
checked your patch and after adding the
On 04/12/2013 08:54 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 06:26:07PM +0200, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
On 04/11/2013 11:19 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
Hi Gregory,
Since there doesn't seem to be anyone opposing this feature I just
checked your patch and after adding the
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 11:04:51AM +0200, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
On 04/12/2013 08:54 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 06:26:07PM +0200, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
On 04/11/2013 11:19 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
Hi Gregory,
Since there doesn't seem to be anyone opposing
On 04/12/2013 11:12 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 11:04:51AM +0200, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
On 04/12/2013 08:54 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 06:26:07PM +0200, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
On 04/11/2013 11:19 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
Hi Gregory,
On 04/11/2013 11:19 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> Hi Gregory,
>
> Since there doesn't seem to be anyone opposing this feature I just
> checked your patch and after adding the CLK_OF_DECLARE macro in the end
> it works well for us. Tell me if you would like to rebase and resubmit
> your patch or
Hi Gregory,
Since there doesn't seem to be anyone opposing this feature I just
checked your patch and after adding the CLK_OF_DECLARE macro in the end
it works well for us. Tell me if you would like to rebase and resubmit
your patch or if I should follow up on our own.
Greetings,
Christian
On
Hi Gregory,
Since there doesn't seem to be anyone opposing this feature I just
checked your patch and after adding the CLK_OF_DECLARE macro in the end
it works well for us. Tell me if you would like to rebase and resubmit
your patch or if I should follow up on our own.
Greetings,
Christian
On
On 04/11/2013 11:19 AM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
Hi Gregory,
Since there doesn't seem to be anyone opposing this feature I just
checked your patch and after adding the CLK_OF_DECLARE macro in the end
it works well for us. Tell me if you would like to rebase and resubmit
your patch or if I
Hi Gregory,
We use derived clocks with fixed ratios for our TB10x platform. I
originally had this in the platform code but Vineet (the platform
maintainer) rightly pointed out that the common clock framework would
be the correct place for it.
Is there any reason not to support this functionality?
Hi Christian,
On 04/10/2013 05:40 PM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
> This patch adds a device tree binding for the simple fixed factor clock
> divider/multiplier of the common clock tree binding.
This patch remind me of something :
This patch adds a device tree binding for the simple fixed factor clock
divider/multiplier of the common clock tree binding.
Signed-off-by: Christian Ruppert
---
.../bindings/clock/fixed-factor-clkdiv.txt | 24 +++
drivers/clk/clk-fixed-factor.c | 32
This patch adds a device tree binding for the simple fixed factor clock
divider/multiplier of the common clock tree binding.
Signed-off-by: Christian Ruppert christian.rupp...@abilis.com
---
.../bindings/clock/fixed-factor-clkdiv.txt | 24 +++
drivers/clk/clk-fixed-factor.c
Hi Christian,
On 04/10/2013 05:40 PM, Christian Ruppert wrote:
This patch adds a device tree binding for the simple fixed factor clock
divider/multiplier of the common clock tree binding.
This patch remind me of something :
Hi Gregory,
We use derived clocks with fixed ratios for our TB10x platform. I
originally had this in the platform code but Vineet (the platform
maintainer) rightly pointed out that the common clock framework would
be the correct place for it.
Is there any reason not to support this functionality?
20 matches
Mail list logo
