On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 06:35:31AM -0700, Mike Dunn wrote:
> On 09/26/2013 05:50 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 03:26:13PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> >> On 26/09/13 15:02, Thierry Reding wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 01:13:18PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 06:35:31AM -0700, Mike Dunn wrote:
On 09/26/2013 05:50 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 03:26:13PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
On 26/09/13 15:02, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 01:13:18PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
On 11/09/13
On 09/26/2013 05:50 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 03:26:13PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>> On 26/09/13 15:02, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 01:13:18PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
On 11/09/13 14:40, Mike Dunn wrote:
> On 09/10/2013 10:21 AM,
On 26/09/13 15:50, Thierry Reding wrote:
>> I thought the NAK was for the DT parts, not for the sequences as such. I
>> don't remember anyone shooting down the idea of defining power sequences
>> inside a driver.
>
> Yes, but the DT parts were the primary reason why they were written in
> the
On 26/09/13 15:50, Thierry Reding wrote:
I thought the NAK was for the DT parts, not for the sequences as such. I
don't remember anyone shooting down the idea of defining power sequences
inside a driver.
Yes, but the DT parts were the primary reason why they were written in
the first
On 09/26/2013 05:50 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 03:26:13PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
On 26/09/13 15:02, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 01:13:18PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
On 11/09/13 14:40, Mike Dunn wrote:
On 09/10/2013 10:21 AM, Thierry Reding
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 03:26:13PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 26/09/13 15:02, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 01:13:18PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> >> On 11/09/13 14:40, Mike Dunn wrote:
> >>> On 09/10/2013 10:21 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> >>
> Do you have a real
On 26/09/13 15:02, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 01:13:18PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>> On 11/09/13 14:40, Mike Dunn wrote:
>>> On 09/10/2013 10:21 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>
Do you have a real setup that actually needs multiple GPIOs? Usually
such a setup
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 01:13:18PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 11/09/13 14:40, Mike Dunn wrote:
> > On 09/10/2013 10:21 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
>
> >> Do you have a real setup that actually needs multiple GPIOs? Usually
> >> such a setup requires some kind of timing or other additional
On 11/09/13 14:40, Mike Dunn wrote:
> On 09/10/2013 10:21 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
>> Do you have a real setup that actually needs multiple GPIOs? Usually
>> such a setup requires some kind of timing or other additional constraint
>> which can't be represented by this simple binding.
>>
>>
On 11/09/13 14:40, Mike Dunn wrote:
On 09/10/2013 10:21 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
Do you have a real setup that actually needs multiple GPIOs? Usually
such a setup requires some kind of timing or other additional constraint
which can't be represented by this simple binding.
Looking at the
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 01:13:18PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
On 11/09/13 14:40, Mike Dunn wrote:
On 09/10/2013 10:21 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
Do you have a real setup that actually needs multiple GPIOs? Usually
such a setup requires some kind of timing or other additional constraint
On 26/09/13 15:02, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 01:13:18PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
On 11/09/13 14:40, Mike Dunn wrote:
On 09/10/2013 10:21 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
Do you have a real setup that actually needs multiple GPIOs? Usually
such a setup requires some kind of
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 03:26:13PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
On 26/09/13 15:02, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 01:13:18PM +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
On 11/09/13 14:40, Mike Dunn wrote:
On 09/10/2013 10:21 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
Do you have a real setup that
On 09/10/2013 10:21 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 12:26:12PM -0700, Mike Dunn wrote:
>> This patch adds support for controlling an arbitrary number of gpios to the
>> pwm-backlight driver. This was left as a TODO when initial device tree
>> support
>> was added by Thierry a
On 09/10/2013 10:21 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 12:26:12PM -0700, Mike Dunn wrote:
This patch adds support for controlling an arbitrary number of gpios to the
pwm-backlight driver. This was left as a TODO when initial device tree
support
was added by Thierry a while
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 12:26:12PM -0700, Mike Dunn wrote:
> This patch adds support for controlling an arbitrary number of gpios to the
> pwm-backlight driver. This was left as a TODO when initial device tree
> support
> was added by Thierry a while back. This functionality replaces the
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 12:26:12PM -0700, Mike Dunn wrote:
This patch adds support for controlling an arbitrary number of gpios to the
pwm-backlight driver. This was left as a TODO when initial device tree
support
was added by Thierry a while back. This functionality replaces the callbacks
This patch adds support for controlling an arbitrary number of gpios to the
pwm-backlight driver. This was left as a TODO when initial device tree support
was added by Thierry a while back. This functionality replaces the callbacks
that are passed in the platform data for non-DT cases. Users
This patch adds support for controlling an arbitrary number of gpios to the
pwm-backlight driver. This was left as a TODO when initial device tree support
was added by Thierry a while back. This functionality replaces the callbacks
that are passed in the platform data for non-DT cases. Users
20 matches
Mail list logo
