On 2020-06-24 11:14, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
>
>> On 2020-06-24 02:46, Lee Jones wrote:
>>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>
On 2020-06-23 14:59, Lee Jones wrote:
>>
>> < big snip >
>>
>> Thanks for the replies in the above portion.
>
> NP.
>
On Wed, 24 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 2020-06-24 02:46, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
> >
> >> On 2020-06-23 14:59, Lee Jones wrote:
>
> < big snip >
>
> Thanks for the replies in the above portion.
NP.
> But yes or no to my solution #2 (with some
On 2020-06-24 02:46, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
>
>> On 2020-06-23 14:59, Lee Jones wrote:
< big snip >
Thanks for the replies in the above portion.
But yes or no to my solution #2 (with some slight changes to
make it better (more gracious handling
On Wed, 24 Jun 2020, Michael Walle wrote:
> Am 2020-06-24 10:23, schrieb Lee Jones:
> > On Wed, 24 Jun 2020, Michael Walle wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> > > Although Rob mentioned to maybe relax that, but I sill fail to see
> > > the advantage to have an arbitrary reg property instead of a unique
> > >
Am 2020-06-24 10:23, schrieb Lee Jones:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2020, Michael Walle wrote:
[..]
Although Rob mentioned to maybe relax that, but I sill fail to see
the advantage to have an arbitrary reg property instead of a unique
node name.
I don't have a strong opinion either way.
We can *also*
On Wed, 24 Jun 2020, Michael Walle wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 2020-06-24 08:41, schrieb Lee Jones:
> > On Tue, 23 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
> >
> > > On 2020-06-11 14:10, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > Currently, when a child platform device (sometimes referred to as a
> > > > sub-device) is registered
Hi,
Am 2020-06-24 08:41, schrieb Lee Jones:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
On 2020-06-11 14:10, Lee Jones wrote:
> Currently, when a child platform device (sometimes referred to as a
> sub-device) is registered via the Multi-Functional Device (MFD) API,
> the framework attempts to
On Tue, 23 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 2020-06-23 14:59, Lee Jones wrote:
> > Suggestion #2
> >
> >> 2) Modify patch 1/3. The small part of the patch to modify is:
> >>
> >> +static int mfd_match_of_node_to_dev(struct platform_device *pdev,
> >> +
On Tue, 23 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 2020-06-11 14:10, Lee Jones wrote:
> > Currently, when a child platform device (sometimes referred to as a
> > sub-device) is registered via the Multi-Functional Device (MFD) API,
> > the framework attempts to match the newly registered platform
On Tue, 23 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 2020-06-11 14:10, Lee Jones wrote:
> > Currently, when a child platform device (sometimes referred to as a
> > sub-device) is registered via the Multi-Functional Device (MFD) API,
> > the framework attempts to match the newly registered platform
On 2020-06-11 14:10, Lee Jones wrote:
> Currently, when a child platform device (sometimes referred to as a
> sub-device) is registered via the Multi-Functional Device (MFD) API,
> the framework attempts to match the newly registered platform device
> with its associated Device Tree (OF) node.
On 2020-06-23 14:59, Lee Jones wrote:
> Suggestion #2
>
>> 2) Modify patch 1/3. The small part of the patch to modify is:
>>
>> +static int mfd_match_of_node_to_dev(struct platform_device *pdev,
>> +struct device_node *np,
>> +
On 2020-06-11 14:10, Lee Jones wrote:
> Currently, when a child platform device (sometimes referred to as a
> sub-device) is registered via the Multi-Functional Device (MFD) API,
> the framework attempts to match the newly registered platform device
> with its associated Device Tree (OF) node.
Suggestion #2
> 2) Modify patch 1/3. The small part of the patch to modify is:
>
> +static int mfd_match_of_node_to_dev(struct platform_device *pdev,
> +struct device_node *np,
> +const struct
On 2020-06-23 01:47, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
>
>> On 2020-06-22 14:11, Lee Jones wrote:
>>> On Mon, 22 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>
On 2020-06-22 10:10, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
>
>> On 2020-06-22 03:50,
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 2020-06-22 14:11, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
> >
> >> On 2020-06-22 10:10, Lee Jones wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 22 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
> >>>
> On 2020-06-22 03:50, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Jun
On 2020-06-22 20:17, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 2020-06-22 17:23, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 2020-06-22 14:11, Lee Jones wrote:
>>> On Mon, 22 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>
On 2020-06-22 10:10, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
>
>> On 2020-06-22 03:50,
On 2020-06-22 17:23, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 2020-06-22 14:11, Lee Jones wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>
>>> On 2020-06-22 10:10, Lee Jones wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 2020-06-22 03:50, Lee Jones wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2020, Frank
On 2020-06-22 14:11, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
>
>> On 2020-06-22 10:10, Lee Jones wrote:
>>> On Mon, 22 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>
On 2020-06-22 03:50, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
>
>> On 2020-06-15 04:26,
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 2020-06-22 10:10, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
> >
> >> On 2020-06-22 03:50, Lee Jones wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
> >>>
> On 2020-06-15 04:26, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Jun
On 2020-06-22 13:01, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 2020-06-22 10:10, Lee Jones wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>
>>> On 2020-06-22 03:50, Lee Jones wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 2020-06-15 04:26, Lee Jones wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Jun 2020, Frank
On 2020-06-22 10:10, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
>
>> On 2020-06-22 03:50, Lee Jones wrote:
>>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>
On 2020-06-15 04:26, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
>
>> Hi Lee,
>>
>>
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 2020-06-22 03:09, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Jun 2020, Lee Jones wrote:
> >
> >> Currently, when a child platform device (sometimes referred to as a
> >> sub-device) is registered via the Multi-Functional Device (MFD) API,
> >> the framework
On 2020-06-22 03:09, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2020, Lee Jones wrote:
>
>> Currently, when a child platform device (sometimes referred to as a
>> sub-device) is registered via the Multi-Functional Device (MFD) API,
>> the framework attempts to match the newly registered platform device
>>
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 2020-06-22 03:50, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
> >
> >> On 2020-06-15 04:26, Lee Jones wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 14 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
> >>>
> Hi Lee,
>
> I'm looking at 5.8-rc1.
>
> The
On 2020-06-22 09:32, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 2020-06-22 03:50, Lee Jones wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>
>>> On 2020-06-15 04:26, Lee Jones wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
> Hi Lee,
>
> I'm looking at 5.8-rc1.
>
> The only use of
On 2020-06-22 03:50, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
>
>> On 2020-06-15 04:26, Lee Jones wrote:
>>> On Sun, 14 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>
Hi Lee,
I'm looking at 5.8-rc1.
The only use of OF_MFD_CELL() where the same compatible is
On Thu, 18 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 2020-06-15 04:26, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Lee,
> >>
> >> I'm looking at 5.8-rc1.
> >>
> >> The only use of OF_MFD_CELL() where the same compatible is specified
> >> for multiple elements of a struct
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020, Lee Jones wrote:
> Currently, when a child platform device (sometimes referred to as a
> sub-device) is registered via the Multi-Functional Device (MFD) API,
> the framework attempts to match the newly registered platform device
> with its associated Device Tree (OF) node.
On 2020-06-15 04:26, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
>
>> Hi Lee,
>>
>> I'm looking at 5.8-rc1.
>>
>> The only use of OF_MFD_CELL() where the same compatible is specified
>> for multiple elements of a struct mfd_cell array is for compatible
>> "stericsson,ab8500-pwm"
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020, Frank Rowand wrote:
> Hi Lee,
>
> I'm looking at 5.8-rc1.
>
> The only use of OF_MFD_CELL() where the same compatible is specified
> for multiple elements of a struct mfd_cell array is for compatible
> "stericsson,ab8500-pwm" in drivers/mfd/ab8500-core.c:
>
>
Hi Lee,
I'm looking at 5.8-rc1.
The only use of OF_MFD_CELL() where the same compatible is specified
for multiple elements of a struct mfd_cell array is for compatible
"stericsson,ab8500-pwm" in drivers/mfd/ab8500-core.c:
OF_MFD_CELL("ab8500-pwm",
NULL, NULL, 0, 1,
+ Frank (me)
On 2020-06-11 14:10, Lee Jones wrote:
> Currently, when a child platform device (sometimes referred to as a
> sub-device) is registered via the Multi-Functional Device (MFD) API,
> the framework attempts to match the newly registered platform device
> with its associated Device Tree
Currently, when a child platform device (sometimes referred to as a
sub-device) is registered via the Multi-Functional Device (MFD) API,
the framework attempts to match the newly registered platform device
with its associated Device Tree (OF) node. Until now, the device has
been allocated the
Currently, when a child platform device (sometimes referred to as a
sub-device) is registered via the Multi-Functional Device (MFD) API,
the framework attempts to match the newly registered platform device
with its associated Device Tree (OF) node. Until now, the device has
been allocated the
35 matches
Mail list logo
