Hello Jhon,
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 7:44 AM, John Syn wrote:
>
> On 5/13/14, 8:39 PM, "Pantelis Antoniou"
> wrote:
>
>>Hi John,
>>
>>On May 13, 2014, at 1:24 PM, John Syn wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 5/13/14, 10:51 AM, "Javier Martinez Canillas"
>>> wrote:
>>>
Hello Pantelis,
On Tue,
Hello Jhon,
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 7:44 AM, John Syn john3...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/13/14, 8:39 PM, Pantelis Antoniou pantelis.anton...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi John,
On May 13, 2014, at 1:24 PM, John Syn wrote:
On 5/13/14, 10:51 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas jav...@dowhile0.org
wrote:
On 5/13/14, 8:39 PM, "Pantelis Antoniou"
wrote:
>Hi John,
>
>On May 13, 2014, at 1:24 PM, John Syn wrote:
>
>>
>> On 5/13/14, 10:51 AM, "Javier Martinez Canillas"
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Pantelis,
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Pantelis Antoniou
>>> wrote:
Hi Javier,
Hi John,
On May 13, 2014, at 1:24 PM, John Syn wrote:
>
> On 5/13/14, 10:51 AM, "Javier Martinez Canillas"
> wrote:
>
>> Hello Pantelis,
>>
>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Pantelis Antoniou
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Javier,
>>>
>>> On May 13, 2014, at 7:39 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
Hi Javier,
On May 13, 2014, at 10:51 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> Hello Pantelis,
>
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Pantelis Antoniou
> wrote:
>> Hi Javier,
>>
>> On May 13, 2014, at 7:39 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Matt Porter
On 5/13/14, 10:51 AM, "Javier Martinez Canillas"
wrote:
>Hello Pantelis,
>
>On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Pantelis Antoniou
> wrote:
>> Hi Javier,
>>
>> On May 13, 2014, at 7:39 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Matt Porter
>>>wrote:
On Tue,
Hello Pantelis,
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Pantelis Antoniou
wrote:
> Hi Javier,
>
> On May 13, 2014, at 7:39 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Matt Porter wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 04:06:02PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
On
Hi Javier,
On May 13, 2014, at 7:39 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Matt Porter wrote:
>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 04:06:02PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
On 05/12/2014 04:57 PM, Robert
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Matt Porter wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 04:06:02PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>> > On 05/12/2014 04:57 PM, Robert Nelson wrote:
>> Either case if fine with me. As who knows when the dtc
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 04:06:02PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On 05/12/2014 04:57 PM, Robert Nelson wrote:
> Either case if fine with me. As who knows when the dtc "overlay" will
> every truly make it mainline, as the
On 05/13/2014 10:06 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> Agreed. I think that until the device tree overlay and the cape
> manager find their way into mainline we should treat capes as if they
> were expansion boards attached to a Computer-on-Module. That is, a
> static based board which its own
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On 05/12/2014 04:57 PM, Robert Nelson wrote:
Either case if fine with me. As who knows when the dtc "overlay" will
every truly make it mainline, as the capemgr was the only real kernel
user of the i2c/at24 eeprom information.
>>>
On 05/12/2014 04:57 PM, Robert Nelson wrote:
>>> Either case if fine with me. As who knows when the dtc "overlay" will
>>> every truly make it mainline, as the capemgr was the only real kernel
>>> user of the i2c/at24 eeprom information.
>>
>> Sounds like we should keep it disabled though so
On 05/12/2014 04:57 PM, Robert Nelson wrote:
Either case if fine with me. As who knows when the dtc overlay will
every truly make it mainline, as the capemgr was the only real kernel
user of the i2c/at24 eeprom information.
Sounds like we should keep it disabled though so u-boot can be used
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Tom Rini tr...@ti.com wrote:
On 05/12/2014 04:57 PM, Robert Nelson wrote:
Either case if fine with me. As who knows when the dtc overlay will
every truly make it mainline, as the capemgr was the only real kernel
user of the i2c/at24 eeprom information.
On 05/13/2014 10:06 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
Agreed. I think that until the device tree overlay and the cape
manager find their way into mainline we should treat capes as if they
were expansion boards attached to a Computer-on-Module. That is, a
static based board which its own DTS
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 04:06:02PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Tom Rini tr...@ti.com wrote:
On 05/12/2014 04:57 PM, Robert Nelson wrote:
Either case if fine with me. As who knows when the dtc overlay will
every truly make it mainline, as the
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Matt Porter matt.por...@linaro.org wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 04:06:02PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Tom Rini tr...@ti.com wrote:
On 05/12/2014 04:57 PM, Robert Nelson wrote:
Either case if fine with me. As who
Hi Javier,
On May 13, 2014, at 7:39 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Matt Porter matt.por...@linaro.org wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 04:06:02PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Tom Rini tr...@ti.com wrote:
On
Hello Pantelis,
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Pantelis Antoniou
pantelis.anton...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Javier,
On May 13, 2014, at 7:39 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Matt Porter matt.por...@linaro.org wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 04:06:02PM +0200,
On 5/13/14, 10:51 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas jav...@dowhile0.org
wrote:
Hello Pantelis,
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Pantelis Antoniou
pantelis.anton...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Javier,
On May 13, 2014, at 7:39 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Matt
Hi Javier,
On May 13, 2014, at 10:51 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
Hello Pantelis,
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Pantelis Antoniou
pantelis.anton...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Javier,
On May 13, 2014, at 7:39 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Matt
Hi John,
On May 13, 2014, at 1:24 PM, John Syn wrote:
On 5/13/14, 10:51 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas jav...@dowhile0.org
wrote:
Hello Pantelis,
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Pantelis Antoniou
pantelis.anton...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Javier,
On May 13, 2014, at 7:39 AM, Javier
On 5/13/14, 8:39 PM, Pantelis Antoniou pantelis.anton...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi John,
On May 13, 2014, at 1:24 PM, John Syn wrote:
On 5/13/14, 10:51 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas jav...@dowhile0.org
wrote:
Hello Pantelis,
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Pantelis Antoniou
* Robert Nelson [140512 13:58]:
> >> Either case if fine with me. As who knows when the dtc "overlay" will
> >> every truly make it mainline, as the capemgr was the only real kernel
> >> user of the i2c/at24 eeprom information.
> >
> > Sounds like we should keep it disabled though so u-boot can
>> Either case if fine with me. As who knows when the dtc "overlay" will
>> every truly make it mainline, as the capemgr was the only real kernel
>> user of the i2c/at24 eeprom information.
>
> Sounds like we should keep it disabled though so u-boot can be used
> to toggle it while waiting for
* Robert Nelson [140512 13:27]:
> >> >
> >> > If these pins are not used for i2c2 on some capes, this device
> >> > should be set to status = "disabled" state by default. Then
> >> > u-boot could re-enable it on the boards that have i2c2 in use.
> >>
> >> To-date, this is the i2c bus that all
>> >
>> > If these pins are not used for i2c2 on some capes, this device
>> > should be set to status = "disabled" state by default. Then
>> > u-boot could re-enable it on the boards that have i2c2 in use.
>>
>> To-date, this is the i2c bus that all capes have placed an at24 eeprom
>> for cape
* Robert Nelson [140512 13:00]:
> >>
> >> + i2c2_pins: pinmux_i2c2_pins {
> >> + pinctrl-single,pins = <
> >> + 0x178 (PIN_INPUT_PULLUP | MUX_MODE3)/*
> >> uart1_ctsn.i2c2_sda */
> >> + 0x17c (PIN_INPUT_PULLUP | MUX_MODE3)/*
> >>
>>
>> + i2c2_pins: pinmux_i2c2_pins {
>> + pinctrl-single,pins = <
>> + 0x178 (PIN_INPUT_PULLUP | MUX_MODE3)/*
>> uart1_ctsn.i2c2_sda */
>> + 0x17c (PIN_INPUT_PULLUP | MUX_MODE3)/*
>> uart1_rtsn.i2c2_scl */
>> + >;
>> +
* Matt Ranostay [140509 18:43]:
> Add missing i2c2 bus define to access various cape and
> prototype/breakout board devices.
>
> Signed-off-by: Matt Ranostay
> ---
> arch/arm/boot/dts/am335x-bone-common.dtsi | 16
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git
* Matt Ranostay mranos...@gmail.com [140509 18:43]:
Add missing i2c2 bus define to access various cape and
prototype/breakout board devices.
Signed-off-by: Matt Ranostay mranos...@gmail.com
---
arch/arm/boot/dts/am335x-bone-common.dtsi | 16
1 file changed, 16
+ i2c2_pins: pinmux_i2c2_pins {
+ pinctrl-single,pins =
+ 0x178 (PIN_INPUT_PULLUP | MUX_MODE3)/*
uart1_ctsn.i2c2_sda */
+ 0x17c (PIN_INPUT_PULLUP | MUX_MODE3)/*
uart1_rtsn.i2c2_scl */
+ ;
+ };
+
* Robert Nelson robertcnel...@gmail.com [140512 13:00]:
+ i2c2_pins: pinmux_i2c2_pins {
+ pinctrl-single,pins =
+ 0x178 (PIN_INPUT_PULLUP | MUX_MODE3)/*
uart1_ctsn.i2c2_sda */
+ 0x17c (PIN_INPUT_PULLUP | MUX_MODE3)/*
If these pins are not used for i2c2 on some capes, this device
should be set to status = disabled state by default. Then
u-boot could re-enable it on the boards that have i2c2 in use.
To-date, this is the i2c bus that all capes have placed an at24 eeprom
for cape identification.
And
* Robert Nelson robertcnel...@gmail.com [140512 13:27]:
If these pins are not used for i2c2 on some capes, this device
should be set to status = disabled state by default. Then
u-boot could re-enable it on the boards that have i2c2 in use.
To-date, this is the i2c bus that all
Either case if fine with me. As who knows when the dtc overlay will
every truly make it mainline, as the capemgr was the only real kernel
user of the i2c/at24 eeprom information.
Sounds like we should keep it disabled though so u-boot can be used
to toggle it while waiting for the capemgr.
* Robert Nelson robertcnel...@gmail.com [140512 13:58]:
Either case if fine with me. As who knows when the dtc overlay will
every truly make it mainline, as the capemgr was the only real kernel
user of the i2c/at24 eeprom information.
Sounds like we should keep it disabled though so
Add missing i2c2 bus define to access various cape and
prototype/breakout board devices.
Signed-off-by: Matt Ranostay
---
arch/arm/boot/dts/am335x-bone-common.dtsi | 16
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/am335x-bone-common.dtsi
Add missing i2c2 bus define to access various cape and
prototype/breakout board devices.
Signed-off-by: Matt Ranostay mranos...@gmail.com
---
arch/arm/boot/dts/am335x-bone-common.dtsi | 16
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/am335x-bone-common.dtsi
40 matches
Mail list logo
