On 01/27/14 15:45, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 19:34:10 +0100, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
Allocating the pinctrl resource in common pinctrl-mvebu was a misdesign,
as it does not allow SoC specific parts to access the allocated resource.
This moves resource allocation from
Dear Sebastian Hesselbarth,
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 19:34:10 +0100, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
> Allocating the pinctrl resource in common pinctrl-mvebu was a misdesign,
> as it does not allow SoC specific parts to access the allocated resource.
> This moves resource allocation from
Dear Sebastian Hesselbarth,
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 19:34:10 +0100, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
Allocating the pinctrl resource in common pinctrl-mvebu was a misdesign,
as it does not allow SoC specific parts to access the allocated resource.
This moves resource allocation from
On 01/27/14 15:45, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 19:34:10 +0100, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
Allocating the pinctrl resource in common pinctrl-mvebu was a misdesign,
as it does not allow SoC specific parts to access the allocated resource.
This moves resource allocation from
Allocating the pinctrl resource in common pinctrl-mvebu was a misdesign,
as it does not allow SoC specific parts to access the allocated resource.
This moves resource allocation from mvebu_pinctrl_probe to SoC specific
_probe functions and passes the base address to common pinctrl driver
instead.
Allocating the pinctrl resource in common pinctrl-mvebu was a misdesign,
as it does not allow SoC specific parts to access the allocated resource.
This moves resource allocation from mvebu_pinctrl_probe to SoC specific
_probe functions and passes the base address to common pinctrl driver
instead.
6 matches
Mail list logo
