On Thu, 02 Apr 2015, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Mar 2015, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 25 Mar 2015, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:28
Hi Lee,
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2015, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>> > On Wed, 25 Mar 2015, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
>> >> > On Fri, 06 Mar
Hi Lee,
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2015, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
On Wed, 25 Mar 2015, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Lee Jones
On Thu, 02 Apr 2015, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2015, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
On Wed, 25 Mar 2015, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On
On Thu, 26 Mar 2015, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Lee,
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Mar 2015, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 06 Mar 2015, Mike Turquette wrote:
> >> >> This approach looks
Hi Lee,
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2015, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
>> > On Fri, 06 Mar 2015, Mike Turquette wrote:
>> >> This approach looks fine to me. In practice I think it is restricted to
>> >>
On Wed, 25 Mar 2015, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Lee,
>
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Fri, 06 Mar 2015, Mike Turquette wrote:
> >> Quoting Lee Jones (2015-03-04 04:00:03)
> >> > Mike,
> >> >
> >> > Do you want me to resend this set with Robert's Reviewed-by
Hi Lee,
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
On Wed, 25 Mar 2015, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
On Fri, 06 Mar 2015, Mike Turquette wrote:
This approach looks fine to me. In practice I think
On Thu, 26 Mar 2015, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
Hi Lee,
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
On Wed, 25 Mar 2015, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
On Fri, 06 Mar 2015, Mike Turquette wrote:
On Wed, 25 Mar 2015, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
Hi Lee,
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
On Fri, 06 Mar 2015, Mike Turquette wrote:
Quoting Lee Jones (2015-03-04 04:00:03)
Mike,
Do you want me to resend this set with Robert's Reviewed-by
Hi Lee,
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Mar 2015, Mike Turquette wrote:
>> Quoting Lee Jones (2015-03-04 04:00:03)
>> > Mike,
>> >
>> > Do you want me to resend this set with Robert's Reviewed-by applied,
>> > or are you happy to apply it yourself?
>>
>> No need
Hi Lee,
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org wrote:
On Fri, 06 Mar 2015, Mike Turquette wrote:
Quoting Lee Jones (2015-03-04 04:00:03)
Mike,
Do you want me to resend this set with Robert's Reviewed-by applied,
or are you happy to apply it yourself?
No need
On Fri, 06 Mar 2015, Mike Turquette wrote:
> Quoting Lee Jones (2015-03-04 04:00:03)
> > Mike,
> >
> > Do you want me to resend this set with Robert's Reviewed-by applied,
> > or are you happy to apply it yourself?
>
> No need for the resend. I am hoping for a final review from a DT human.
>
>
On Fri, 06 Mar 2015, Mike Turquette wrote:
Quoting Lee Jones (2015-03-04 04:00:03)
Mike,
Do you want me to resend this set with Robert's Reviewed-by applied,
or are you happy to apply it yourself?
No need for the resend. I am hoping for a final review from a DT human.
This
Quoting Lee Jones (2015-03-04 04:00:03)
> Mike,
>
> Do you want me to resend this set with Robert's Reviewed-by applied,
> or are you happy to apply it yourself?
No need for the resend. I am hoping for a final review from a DT human.
This approach looks fine to me. In practice I think it is
Quoting Lee Jones (2015-03-04 04:00:03)
Mike,
Do you want me to resend this set with Robert's Reviewed-by applied,
or are you happy to apply it yourself?
No need for the resend. I am hoping for a final review from a DT human.
This approach looks fine to me. In practice I think it is
Mike,
Do you want me to resend this set with Robert's Reviewed-by applied,
or are you happy to apply it yourself?
> v2 => v3:
> - Ensure DT actually reflects h/w
> - i.e. Nodes should not contain a mishmash of different IP
> blocks, but should identify related h/w. In the current
>
Mike,
Do you want me to resend this set with Robert's Reviewed-by applied,
or are you happy to apply it yourself?
v2 = v3:
- Ensure DT actually reflects h/w
- i.e. Nodes should not contain a mishmash of different IP
blocks, but should identify related h/w. In the current
On Mon, 02 Mar 2015, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
> Lee Jones writes:
>
> > On Sat, 28 Feb 2015, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
> >
> >> Lee Jones writes:
> >> it doesn't specify which usecase is not covered by CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED,
> >> it
> >> says, up to my understanding, that is it another way to
Lee Jones writes:
> On Sat, 28 Feb 2015, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
>
>> Lee Jones writes:
>> it doesn't specify which usecase is not covered by CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED, it
>> says, up to my understanding, that is it another way to have to
>> CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED flag applied.
>
> Well that is
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
> Lee Jones writes:
>
> >> I wonder why there is a need for a new clock when CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED does
> >> exist. What is the usecase that is covered by this patchset which is not
> >> used by
> >> CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED clock flag ?
> >>
> >> And if that
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org writes:
I wonder why there is a need for a new clock when CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED does
exist. What is the usecase that is covered by this patchset which is not
used by
CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED clock flag ?
And if that
Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org writes:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org writes:
it doesn't specify which usecase is not covered by CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED, it
says, up to my understanding, that is it another way to have to
CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED
On Mon, 02 Mar 2015, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org writes:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org writes:
it doesn't specify which usecase is not covered by CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED,
it
says, up to my understanding, that
Lee Jones writes:
>> I wonder why there is a need for a new clock when CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED does
>> exist. What is the usecase that is covered by this patchset which is not
>> used by
>> CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED clock flag ?
>>
>> And if that reason exists, I'd like to find it in the commit message.
>
>
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
> Lee Jones writes:
>
> > v2 => v3:
> > - Ensure DT actually reflects h/w
> > - i.e. Nodes should not contain a mishmash of different IP
> > blocks, but should identify related h/w. In the current
> > example we use interconnects
> >
Lee Jones writes:
> v2 => v3:
> - Ensure DT actually reflects h/w
> - i.e. Nodes should not contain a mishmash of different IP
> blocks, but should identify related h/w. In the current
> example we use interconnects
> - Change naming from clkdomain to clk-always-on
> -
Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org writes:
v2 = v3:
- Ensure DT actually reflects h/w
- i.e. Nodes should not contain a mishmash of different IP
blocks, but should identify related h/w. In the current
example we use interconnects
- Change naming from clkdomain to
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org writes:
v2 = v3:
- Ensure DT actually reflects h/w
- i.e. Nodes should not contain a mishmash of different IP
blocks, but should identify related h/w. In the current
example we use
Lee Jones lee.jo...@linaro.org writes:
I wonder why there is a need for a new clock when CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED does
exist. What is the usecase that is covered by this patchset which is not
used by
CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED clock flag ?
And if that reason exists, I'd like to find it in the commit
On Tue, 24 Feb 2015, Lee Jones wrote:
> v2 => v3:
> - Ensure DT actually reflects h/w
> - i.e. Nodes should not contain a mishmash of different IP
> blocks, but should identify related h/w. In the current
> example we use interconnects
> - Change naming from clkdomain to
v2 => v3:
- Ensure DT actually reflects h/w
- i.e. Nodes should not contain a mishmash of different IP
blocks, but should identify related h/w. In the current
example we use interconnects
- Change naming from clkdomain to clk-always-on
- Place "do not abuse" warning in
v2 = v3:
- Ensure DT actually reflects h/w
- i.e. Nodes should not contain a mishmash of different IP
blocks, but should identify related h/w. In the current
example we use interconnects
- Change naming from clkdomain to clk-always-on
- Place do not abuse warning in
On Tue, 24 Feb 2015, Lee Jones wrote:
v2 = v3:
- Ensure DT actually reflects h/w
- i.e. Nodes should not contain a mishmash of different IP
blocks, but should identify related h/w. In the current
example we use interconnects
- Change naming from clkdomain to
34 matches
Mail list logo
