On 8/23/2013 8:40 PM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
>>> There is no assumption about the lost of functionality by using the
>>> generic version of the driver. How the user is supposed to know the
>>> amount of functionality he will lose, and if this is acceptable to
>>> him.
>>
>> I suppose the generic
Hi Sekhar,
On 23/08/2013 10:50, Sekhar Nori wrote:
Hi Benoit,
Did you get a chance to think about this, I have provided some
replies below.
On Friday 16 August 2013 10:03 PM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
Hi Sekhar,
On 16/08/2013 17:41, Sekhar Nori wrote:
On 8/16/2013 7:45 PM, Benoit Cousson
Hi Benoit,
Did you get a chance to think about this, I have provided some replies
below.
On Friday 16 August 2013 10:03 PM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
> Hi Sekhar,
>
> On 16/08/2013 17:41, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>>
>> On 8/16/2013 7:45 PM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
>>> Hi Gururaja,
>>>
>>> On 16/08/2013
Hi Benoit,
Did you get a chance to think about this, I have provided some replies
below.
On Friday 16 August 2013 10:03 PM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
Hi Sekhar,
On 16/08/2013 17:41, Sekhar Nori wrote:
On 8/16/2013 7:45 PM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
Hi Gururaja,
On 16/08/2013 13:36, Hebbar,
Hi Sekhar,
On 23/08/2013 10:50, Sekhar Nori wrote:
Hi Benoit,
Did you get a chance to think about this, I have provided some
replies below.
On Friday 16 August 2013 10:03 PM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
Hi Sekhar,
On 16/08/2013 17:41, Sekhar Nori wrote:
On 8/16/2013 7:45 PM, Benoit Cousson
On 8/23/2013 8:40 PM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
There is no assumption about the lost of functionality by using the
generic version of the driver. How the user is supposed to know the
amount of functionality he will lose, and if this is acceptable to
him.
I suppose the generic driver would
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 07:12:46PM +0100, Benoit Cousson wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On 16/08/2013 19:20, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > Hi Benoit,
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 03:15:57PM +0100, Benoit Cousson wrote:
> >> Hi Gururaja,
> >>
> >> On 16/08/2013 13:36, Hebbar, Gururaja wrote:
> >>> The syntax
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 07:12:46PM +0100, Benoit Cousson wrote:
Hi Mark,
On 16/08/2013 19:20, Mark Rutland wrote:
Hi Benoit,
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 03:15:57PM +0100, Benoit Cousson wrote:
Hi Gururaja,
On 16/08/2013 13:36, Hebbar, Gururaja wrote:
The syntax of compatible property
Hi Mark,
On 16/08/2013 19:20, Mark Rutland wrote:
Hi Benoit,
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 03:15:57PM +0100, Benoit Cousson wrote:
Hi Gururaja,
On 16/08/2013 13:36, Hebbar, Gururaja wrote:
The syntax of compatible property in DT is to mention the Most specific
match to most generic match.
Since
Hi Benoit,
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 03:15:57PM +0100, Benoit Cousson wrote:
> Hi Gururaja,
>
> On 16/08/2013 13:36, Hebbar, Gururaja wrote:
> > The syntax of compatible property in DT is to mention the Most specific
> > match to most generic match.
> >
> > Since AM335x is the platform with latest
Hi Sekhar,
On 16/08/2013 17:41, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>
> On 8/16/2013 7:45 PM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
>> Hi Gururaja,
>>
>> On 16/08/2013 13:36, Hebbar, Gururaja wrote:
>>> The syntax of compatible property in DT is to mention the Most specific
>>> match to most generic match.
>>>
>>> Since AM335x
On 8/16/2013 7:45 PM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
> Hi Gururaja,
>
> On 16/08/2013 13:36, Hebbar, Gururaja wrote:
>> The syntax of compatible property in DT is to mention the Most specific
>> match to most generic match.
>>
>> Since AM335x is the platform with latest IP revision, add it 1st in
>> the
Hi Gururaja,
On 16/08/2013 13:36, Hebbar, Gururaja wrote:
The syntax of compatible property in DT is to mention the Most specific
match to most generic match.
Since AM335x is the platform with latest IP revision, add it 1st in
the device id table.
I don't understand why? The order should not
The syntax of compatible property in DT is to mention the Most specific
match to most generic match.
Since AM335x is the platform with latest IP revision, add it 1st in
the device id table.
This way, we can add new matching compatible as 1st and maintain old
compatible string for backwards
The syntax of compatible property in DT is to mention the Most specific
match to most generic match.
Since AM335x is the platform with latest IP revision, add it 1st in
the device id table.
This way, we can add new matching compatible as 1st and maintain old
compatible string for backwards
Hi Gururaja,
On 16/08/2013 13:36, Hebbar, Gururaja wrote:
The syntax of compatible property in DT is to mention the Most specific
match to most generic match.
Since AM335x is the platform with latest IP revision, add it 1st in
the device id table.
I don't understand why? The order should not
On 8/16/2013 7:45 PM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
Hi Gururaja,
On 16/08/2013 13:36, Hebbar, Gururaja wrote:
The syntax of compatible property in DT is to mention the Most specific
match to most generic match.
Since AM335x is the platform with latest IP revision, add it 1st in
the device id
Hi Sekhar,
On 16/08/2013 17:41, Sekhar Nori wrote:
On 8/16/2013 7:45 PM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
Hi Gururaja,
On 16/08/2013 13:36, Hebbar, Gururaja wrote:
The syntax of compatible property in DT is to mention the Most specific
match to most generic match.
Since AM335x is the platform with
Hi Benoit,
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 03:15:57PM +0100, Benoit Cousson wrote:
Hi Gururaja,
On 16/08/2013 13:36, Hebbar, Gururaja wrote:
The syntax of compatible property in DT is to mention the Most specific
match to most generic match.
Since AM335x is the platform with latest IP
Hi Mark,
On 16/08/2013 19:20, Mark Rutland wrote:
Hi Benoit,
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 03:15:57PM +0100, Benoit Cousson wrote:
Hi Gururaja,
On 16/08/2013 13:36, Hebbar, Gururaja wrote:
The syntax of compatible property in DT is to mention the Most specific
match to most generic match.
Since
20 matches
Mail list logo
