Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: at91: Document new TCB bindings

On 07/04/2017 at 14:15:36 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > >> What's your solution for this case? > > > > It seems that we don't have any progress on this topic for more than 6 > > months which is a pity as we now experience an issue that would have > > been addressed completely by the TC rework

Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: at91: Document new TCB bindings

On 07/04/2017 at 14:15:36 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > >> What's your solution for this case? > > > > It seems that we don't have any progress on this topic for more than 6 > > months which is a pity as we now experience an issue that would have > > been addressed completely by the TC rework

Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: at91: Document new TCB bindings

On 13/03/2017 16:18, Nicolas Ferre wrote: > Le 25/01/2017 à 16:11, Boris Brezillon a écrit : >> Hi Rob, >> >> Sorry to revive this old discussion, but there's still one aspect I'm >> not sure about. >> >> On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 10:40:22 -0500 >> Rob Herring wrote: >> >> + -

Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: at91: Document new TCB bindings

On 13/03/2017 16:18, Nicolas Ferre wrote: > Le 25/01/2017 à 16:11, Boris Brezillon a écrit : >> Hi Rob, >> >> Sorry to revive this old discussion, but there's still one aspect I'm >> not sure about. >> >> On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 10:40:22 -0500 >> Rob Herring wrote: >> >> + - compatible: Should

Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: at91: Document new TCB bindings

Le 25/01/2017 à 16:11, Boris Brezillon a écrit : > Hi Rob, > > Sorry to revive this old discussion, but there's still one aspect I'm > not sure about. > > On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 10:40:22 -0500 > Rob Herring wrote: > > + - compatible: Should be "atmel,tcb-free-running-timer"

Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: at91: Document new TCB bindings

Le 25/01/2017 à 16:11, Boris Brezillon a écrit : > Hi Rob, > > Sorry to revive this old discussion, but there's still one aspect I'm > not sure about. > > On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 10:40:22 -0500 > Rob Herring wrote: > > + - compatible: Should be "atmel,tcb-free-running-timer" > + - reg:

Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: at91: Document new TCB bindings

Hi Rob, Sorry to revive this old discussion, but there's still one aspect I'm not sure about. On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 10:40:22 -0500 Rob Herring wrote: > >> > + - compatible: Should be "atmel,tcb-free-running-timer" > >> > + - reg: Should contain the TCB channels to be used. If

Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: at91: Document new TCB bindings

Hi Rob, Sorry to revive this old discussion, but there's still one aspect I'm not sure about. On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 10:40:22 -0500 Rob Herring wrote: > >> > + - compatible: Should be "atmel,tcb-free-running-timer" > >> > + - reg: Should contain the TCB channels to be used. If the > >> > +

Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: at91: Document new TCB bindings

On 05/07/2016 at 10:40:22 -0500, Rob Herring wrote : > >> > + - compatible: Should be "atmel,tcb-free-running-timer" > >> > + - reg: Should contain the TCB channels to be used. If the > >> > + counter width is 16 bits (at91rm9200-tcb), two consecutive > >> > + channels are needed.

Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: at91: Document new TCB bindings

On 05/07/2016 at 10:40:22 -0500, Rob Herring wrote : > >> > + - compatible: Should be "atmel,tcb-free-running-timer" > >> > + - reg: Should contain the TCB channels to be used. If the > >> > + counter width is 16 bits (at91rm9200-tcb), two consecutive > >> > + channels are needed.

Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: at91: Document new TCB bindings

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 8:10 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 20:27:43 -0500 > Rob Herring wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 05:05:01PM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote: >> > The current binding for the TCB is not flexible

Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: at91: Document new TCB bindings

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 8:10 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 20:27:43 -0500 > Rob Herring wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 05:05:01PM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote: >> > The current binding for the TCB is not flexible enough for some use cases >> > and prevents proper

Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: at91: Document new TCB bindings

On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 20:27:43 -0500 Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 05:05:01PM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > > The current binding for the TCB is not flexible enough for some use cases > > and prevents proper utilization of all the channels. > > > > Cc: Daniel

Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: at91: Document new TCB bindings

On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 20:27:43 -0500 Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 05:05:01PM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > > The current binding for the TCB is not flexible enough for some use cases > > and prevents proper utilization of all the channels. > > > > Cc: Daniel Lezcano > > Cc:

Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: at91: Document new TCB bindings

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 05:05:01PM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > The current binding for the TCB is not flexible enough for some use cases > and prevents proper utilization of all the channels. > > Cc: Daniel Lezcano > Cc: Thierry Reding

Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: at91: Document new TCB bindings

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 05:05:01PM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > The current binding for the TCB is not flexible enough for some use cases > and prevents proper utilization of all the channels. > > Cc: Daniel Lezcano > Cc: Thierry Reding > Cc: linux-...@vger.kernel.org > Cc: Rob Herring >

[PATCH v2] ARM: at91: Document new TCB bindings

The current binding for the TCB is not flexible enough for some use cases and prevents proper utilization of all the channels. Cc: Daniel Lezcano Cc: Thierry Reding Cc: linux-...@vger.kernel.org Cc: Rob Herring Cc:

[PATCH v2] ARM: at91: Document new TCB bindings

The current binding for the TCB is not flexible enough for some use cases and prevents proper utilization of all the channels. Cc: Daniel Lezcano Cc: Thierry Reding Cc: linux-...@vger.kernel.org Cc: Rob Herring Cc: devicet...@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni --- Changes in