On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 04:27:59PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 07:07:28PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Probably best, the Pi bootloader does make it a bit more important.
> > Might also be worth speaking to Greg though.
> So, do you want me to resend that patch and
Hello,
On 12 May 2015 at 16:27, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 07:07:28PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 07:30:36PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>> > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:16:01AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>>
>> > > lkml.org is being terrible as usual so I
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 07:07:28PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 07:30:36PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:16:01AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > lkml.org is being terrible as usual so I can't see half the thread (or
> > > at least got fed up
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 04:27:59PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 07:07:28PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
Probably best, the Pi bootloader does make it a bit more important.
Might also be worth speaking to Greg though.
So, do you want me to resend that patch and discuss
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 07:07:28PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 07:30:36PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:16:01AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
lkml.org is being terrible as usual so I can't see half the thread (or
at least got fed up trying to get
Hello,
On 12 May 2015 at 16:27, Maxime Ripard maxime.rip...@free-electrons.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 07:07:28PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 07:30:36PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:16:01AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
lkml.org is being
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 12:42:03PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> On 4 May 2015 at 12:12, Mark Brown wrote:
> > I'm confused. What would the point of the functionality be if not to
> > override the existing data, otherwise we'd already have bound the
> > driver?
> Presumably you can swap
On 4 May 2015 at 12:12, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sun, May 03, 2015 at 11:00:40PM +0200, Martin Sperl wrote:
>
>> I will investigate the fine details, but I fear we may need some
>> “compatibility” magic similar to “new_id” in USB to make it work,
>> because it seems as if you can ONLY force a
On Sun, May 03, 2015 at 11:00:40PM +0200, Martin Sperl wrote:
> I will investigate the fine details, but I fear we may need some
> “compatibility” magic similar to “new_id” in USB to make it work,
> because it seems as if you can ONLY force a driver to bind if it
> _is_ compatible...
I'm
Hello,
On 3 May 2015 at 23:00, Martin Sperl wrote:
>
>> On 03.05.2015, at 11:59, Mark Brown wrote:
>> Hrm, yes - that should work. I'd ask Greg, that's not something the bus
>> implements.
>
> It is still slightly more “complicated” from a distribution perspective,
> but if that is what makes
Hello,
On 3 May 2015 at 23:00, Martin Sperl ker...@martin.sperl.org wrote:
On 03.05.2015, at 11:59, Mark Brown broo...@kernel.org wrote:
Hrm, yes - that should work. I'd ask Greg, that's not something the bus
implements.
It is still slightly more “complicated” from a distribution
On Sun, May 03, 2015 at 11:00:40PM +0200, Martin Sperl wrote:
I will investigate the fine details, but I fear we may need some
“compatibility” magic similar to “new_id” in USB to make it work,
because it seems as if you can ONLY force a driver to bind if it
_is_ compatible...
I'm confused.
On 4 May 2015 at 12:12, Mark Brown broo...@kernel.org wrote:
On Sun, May 03, 2015 at 11:00:40PM +0200, Martin Sperl wrote:
I will investigate the fine details, but I fear we may need some
“compatibility” magic similar to “new_id” in USB to make it work,
because it seems as if you can ONLY
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 12:42:03PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 12:12, Mark Brown broo...@kernel.org wrote:
I'm confused. What would the point of the functionality be if not to
override the existing data, otherwise we'd already have bound the
driver?
Presumably you can
> On 03.05.2015, at 11:59, Mark Brown wrote:
> Hrm, yes - that should work. I'd ask Greg, that's not something the bus
> implements.
It is still slightly more “complicated” from a distribution perspective,
but if that is what makes it a “clean” solution, then that is the way to
go forward.
I
On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Martin Sperl wrote:
>> On 30.04.2015, at 21:58, Mark Brown wrote:
>> A big reason for that is that it's not in my inbox for me to review,
>> these messages I flagged as unhelpful aren't going to help with that if
>> only because I don't want to create the
On Sun, May 03, 2015 at 11:01:05AM +0200, Martin Sperl wrote:
> What about implementing it like this:
> echo -n “spi32761.4” > /sys/bus/spi/drivers/spidev/bind
> Would this be an acceptable solution?
> This is actually mentioned in Documentation/spi/spidev as a
> possible option for the future
> On 30.04.2015, at 21:58, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> A big reason for that is that it's not in my inbox for me to review,
> these messages I flagged as unhelpful aren't going to help with that if
> only because I don't want to create the impression that such behaviour
> achieves results.
>
What
On 30.04.2015, at 21:58, Mark Brown broo...@kernel.org wrote:
A big reason for that is that it's not in my inbox for me to review,
these messages I flagged as unhelpful aren't going to help with that if
only because I don't want to create the impression that such behaviour
achieves
On 03.05.2015, at 11:59, Mark Brown broo...@kernel.org wrote:
Hrm, yes - that should work. I'd ask Greg, that's not something the bus
implements.
It is still slightly more “complicated” from a distribution perspective,
but if that is what makes it a “clean” solution, then that is the way to
On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Martin Sperl ker...@martin.sperl.org wrote:
On 30.04.2015, at 21:58, Mark Brown broo...@kernel.org wrote:
A big reason for that is that it's not in my inbox for me to review,
these messages I flagged as unhelpful aren't going to help with that if
only because I
On Sun, May 03, 2015 at 11:01:05AM +0200, Martin Sperl wrote:
What about implementing it like this:
echo -n “spi32761.4” /sys/bus/spi/drivers/spidev/bind
Would this be an acceptable solution?
This is actually mentioned in Documentation/spi/spidev as a
possible option for the future -
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 08:37:24PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> On 29 April 2015 at 20:06, Mark Brown wrote:
> > I think the rest of the thread had that covered - there's both adding
> > the device IDs and Maxime's patch.
> And adding device IDs is unacceptable for users of devboards while
>
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 08:37:24PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
On 29 April 2015 at 20:06, Mark Brown broo...@kernel.org wrote:
I think the rest of the thread had that covered - there's both adding
the device IDs and Maxime's patch.
And adding device IDs is unacceptable for users of
On 29 April 2015 at 20:56, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 8:37 PM, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>> I am using a version of Maxime's patch myself right now. It does not
>> seem it's going to be include in the kernel any time soon, however.
>>
>> FWIW I added the ability to open any
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 8:37 PM, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> I am using a version of Maxime's patch myself right now. It does not
> seem it's going to be include in the kernel any time soon, however.
>
> FWIW I added the ability to open any CS, even those claimed by kernel
> drivers. This addresses
On 29 April 2015 at 20:06, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 07:44:59PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>> On 29 April 2015 at 19:40, Mark Brown wrote:
>
>> > Please stop this, it is not helpful.
>
>> Then please make one of the useful ways of instantiating spidev nodes
>> approved or
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 07:44:59PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> On 29 April 2015 at 19:40, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Please stop this, it is not helpful.
> Then please make one of the useful ways of instantiating spidev nodes
> approved or suggest another that when implemented can be mainlined.
On 29 April 2015 at 19:40, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 10:43:37PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>
>> > I know you have a viewpoint on this but engaging in this way is not
>> > helping anyone.
>
>> The point is that patching the kernel to use spidev is totally useless
>>
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 10:43:37PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> > I know you have a viewpoint on this but engaging in this way is not
> > helping anyone.
> The point is that patching the kernel to use spidev is totally useless
> complication which is brought on spidev users by obtuse kernel
>
On 29 April 2015 at 20:56, Geert Uytterhoeven ge...@linux-m68k.org wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 8:37 PM, Michal Suchanek hramr...@gmail.com wrote:
I am using a version of Maxime's patch myself right now. It does not
seem it's going to be include in the kernel any time soon, however.
FWIW I
On 29 April 2015 at 20:06, Mark Brown broo...@kernel.org wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 07:44:59PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
On 29 April 2015 at 19:40, Mark Brown broo...@kernel.org wrote:
Please stop this, it is not helpful.
Then please make one of the useful ways of instantiating
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 10:43:37PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
I know you have a viewpoint on this but engaging in this way is not
helping anyone.
The point is that patching the kernel to use spidev is totally useless
complication which is brought on spidev users by obtuse kernel
On 29 April 2015 at 19:40, Mark Brown broo...@kernel.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 10:43:37PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
I know you have a viewpoint on this but engaging in this way is not
helping anyone.
The point is that patching the kernel to use spidev is totally useless
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 8:37 PM, Michal Suchanek hramr...@gmail.com wrote:
I am using a version of Maxime's patch myself right now. It does not
seem it's going to be include in the kernel any time soon, however.
FWIW I added the ability to open any CS, even those claimed by kernel
drivers.
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 07:44:59PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
On 29 April 2015 at 19:40, Mark Brown broo...@kernel.org wrote:
Please stop this, it is not helpful.
Then please make one of the useful ways of instantiating spidev nodes
approved or suggest another that when implemented can
On 28 April 2015 at 19:17, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 04:22:24PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>> On 28 April 2015 at 16:16, Mark Brown wrote:
>
>> > That is not the case as you well know. As has been said several times
>> > the compatible for the device should be added to the
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 04:22:24PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> On 28 April 2015 at 16:16, Mark Brown wrote:
> > That is not the case as you well know. As has been said several times
> > the compatible for the device should be added to the match table in
> > spidev.c.
> That's a way
On 28 April 2015 at 16:12, Maxime Ripard
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 07:03:16AM -0700, Eric D. wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I give Maxime's patch a try and got 4 spidev devices :
>> /dev/spidev32766.[0-3]
>>
>> root@bpi:~# ls -lh /dev/spidev*
>> crw--- 1 root root 153, 0 Apr 28 15:52
On 28 April 2015 at 16:16, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 02:52:54PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>> On 28 April 2015 at 14:15, Eric D. wrote:
>
>> > I was just seeking a way to make spidev device appear under mainline kernel
>> > and found this thread.
>> > Could someone explain
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 07:03:16AM -0700, Eric D. wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I give Maxime's patch a try and got 4 spidev devices :
> /dev/spidev32766.[0-3]
>
> root@bpi:~# ls -lh /dev/spidev*
> crw--- 1 root root 153, 0 Apr 28 15:52 /dev/spidev32766.0
> crw--- 1 root root 153, 1 Apr 28 15:52
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 02:52:54PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> On 28 April 2015 at 14:15, Eric D. wrote:
> > I was just seeking a way to make spidev device appear under mainline kernel
> > and found this thread.
> > Could someone explain the right way to do this ?
> There is no approved
On 28 April 2015 at 16:03, Eric D. wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I give Maxime's patch a try and got 4 spidev devices :
> /dev/spidev32766.[0-3]
>
> root@bpi:~# ls -lh /dev/spidev*
> crw--- 1 root root 153, 0 Apr 28 15:52 /dev/spidev32766.0
> crw--- 1 root root 153, 1 Apr 28 15:52 /dev/spidev32766.1
>
On 28 April 2015 at 14:15, Eric D. wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'am a mainline linux user of A20 (bananapi). I'am currently running a
> debian jessie with latest mainline kernel (4.0.0+).
> I have a project of home automation, based on nrfl04+ spi driven wireless
> chip.
> I was just seeking a way to make
On 28 April 2015 at 16:16, Mark Brown broo...@kernel.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 02:52:54PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
On 28 April 2015 at 14:15, Eric D. eric.dillm...@gmail.com wrote:
I was just seeking a way to make spidev device appear under mainline kernel
and found this
On 28 April 2015 at 16:03, Eric D. eric.dillm...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I give Maxime's patch a try and got 4 spidev devices :
/dev/spidev32766.[0-3]
root@bpi:~# ls -lh /dev/spidev*
crw--- 1 root root 153, 0 Apr 28 15:52 /dev/spidev32766.0
crw--- 1 root root 153, 1 Apr 28 15:52
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 07:03:16AM -0700, Eric D. wrote:
Hi,
I give Maxime's patch a try and got 4 spidev devices :
/dev/spidev32766.[0-3]
root@bpi:~# ls -lh /dev/spidev*
crw--- 1 root root 153, 0 Apr 28 15:52 /dev/spidev32766.0
crw--- 1 root root 153, 1 Apr 28 15:52
On 28 April 2015 at 16:12, Maxime Ripard
maxime.rip...@free-electrons.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 07:03:16AM -0700, Eric D. wrote:
Hi,
I give Maxime's patch a try and got 4 spidev devices :
/dev/spidev32766.[0-3]
root@bpi:~# ls -lh /dev/spidev*
crw--- 1 root root 153, 0 Apr 28
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 02:52:54PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
On 28 April 2015 at 14:15, Eric D. eric.dillm...@gmail.com wrote:
I was just seeking a way to make spidev device appear under mainline kernel
and found this thread.
Could someone explain the right way to do this ?
There is
On 28 April 2015 at 14:15, Eric D. eric.dillm...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I'am a mainline linux user of A20 (bananapi). I'am currently running a
debian jessie with latest mainline kernel (4.0.0+).
I have a project of home automation, based on nrfl04+ spi driven wireless
chip.
I was just seeking
On 28 April 2015 at 19:17, Mark Brown broo...@kernel.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 04:22:24PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
On 28 April 2015 at 16:16, Mark Brown broo...@kernel.org wrote:
That is not the case as you well know. As has been said several times
the compatible for the
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 04:22:24PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
On 28 April 2015 at 16:16, Mark Brown broo...@kernel.org wrote:
That is not the case as you well know. As has been said several times
the compatible for the device should be added to the match table in
spidev.c.
That's a
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 07:30:36PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:16:01AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > lkml.org is being terrible as usual so I can't see half the thread (or
> > at least got fed up trying to get it to load)
> A part of it is also here:
>
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 06:25:26PM +0200, Martin Sperl wrote:
> > On 27.04.2015, at 17:27, Mark Brown wrote:
> > OK, so that is just a default overlay which is abusing the fact that we
> > will bind to spidev without a DT compatible and when the binding is
> > undocumented (which also applies to
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:16:01AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 02:51:13PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 02:38:18PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>
> > > >> I don't know if it's been suggested before, certainly nobody did the
> > > >> work to make
> On 27.04.2015, at 17:27, Mark Brown wrote:
>
>
> OK, so that is just a default overlay which is abusing the fact that we
> will bind to spidev without a DT compatible and when the binding is
> undocumented (which also applies to other devices and buses sadly).
>
> Unfortunately nobody ever
On 27 April 2015 at 17:13, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>> When you have a serial port and just connect serial device to it with
>> no special requirement you just specify the serial port in DT and talk
>> to the device directly without any
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 04:14:31PM +0200, Martin Sperl wrote:
> On 2015-04-27 13:25, Mark Brown wrote:
> >I don't think you've fully considered your use case here. As I said in
> >my reply to your earlier e-mail I think what you're looking for here is
> >something like better UI around overlays.
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> When you have a serial port and just connect serial device to it with
> no special requirement you just specify the serial port in DT and talk
> to the device directly without any DT foo.
>
> When there is a BT module with reset lines and
On 27 April 2015 at 12:10, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 04:40:50PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>
> Please always provide context in your replies so people know what you're
> talking about.
>
>> I've a feeling everyone in this thread is ignoring the
>> raspberry pi
On 2015-04-27 13:25, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 12:04:12PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Have you seen my mail about the raspberry pi use-case? Using dt-overlays
simply is not an acceptable answer there. There are legitimate use-cases
for a "generic spi bus" concept with the bus
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 12:04:12PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Have you seen my mail about the raspberry pi use-case? Using dt-overlays
> simply is not an acceptable answer there. There are legitimate use-cases
> for a "generic spi bus" concept with the bus only being accessible via
> spidev.
On 27 April 2015 at 12:04, Maxime Ripard
wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 08:53:16PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>> >> Also for driver prototyping you need a compatible which makes the
>> >> device accessible.
>> >>
>> >> If no spidev general compatible is available people will just use
>> >>
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:39:50AM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> On 27 April 2015 at 11:36, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 04:14:33PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> >> There is no device connected in the slot by design. The slot is there
> >> for connecting random stuff you
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 08:53:16PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> Do you have to describe a modem or terminal emulator in DT to connect
> it to your serial port? You just describe the port. So here you have a
> SPI port and it should be described in the DT as faithfully as the
> serial port.
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 02:51:13PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 02:38:18PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> > >> I don't know if it's been suggested before, certainly nobody did the
> > >> work to make it happen. I don't think I have a massive objection in
> > >>
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 08:51:12AM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> On 26 April 2015 at 17:47, Maxime Ripard
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 04:40:50PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I've a feeling everyone in this thread is ignoring the
> >> raspberry pi use-case. Where the
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 04:40:50PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
Please always provide context in your replies so people know what you're
talking about.
> I've a feeling everyone in this thread is ignoring the
> raspberry pi use-case. Where the board is specifically
> designed for
Hi,
On 27-04-15 12:04, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi Mark,
On 27-04-15 11:36, Mark Brown wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 04:14:33PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
On 26 April 2015 at 14:51, Maxime Ripard
No, you add a compatible for the device that is connected to the bus
through that slot.
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 08:53:16PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> >> Also for driver prototyping you need a compatible which makes the
> >> device accessible.
> >>
> >> If no spidev general compatible is available people will just use
> >> compatible for some random device which happens to bind
Hi Mark,
On 27-04-15 11:36, Mark Brown wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 04:14:33PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
On 26 April 2015 at 14:51, Maxime Ripard
No, you add a compatible for the device that is connected to the bus
through that slot.
There is no device connected in the slot by
On 27 April 2015 at 11:36, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 04:14:33PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>> On 26 April 2015 at 14:51, Maxime Ripard
>
>> > No, you add a compatible for the device that is connected to the bus
>> > through that slot.
>
>> There is no device connected in the
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 04:14:33PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> On 26 April 2015 at 14:51, Maxime Ripard
> > No, you add a compatible for the device that is connected to the bus
> > through that slot.
> There is no device connected in the slot by design. The slot is there
> for connecting
On 26 April 2015 at 17:47, Maxime Ripard
wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 04:40:50PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've a feeling everyone in this thread is ignoring the
>> raspberry pi use-case. Where the board is specifically
>> designed for educational purposes and used with lots of
On 26 April 2015 at 17:47, Maxime Ripard
maxime.rip...@free-electrons.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 04:40:50PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
I've a feeling everyone in this thread is ignoring the
raspberry pi use-case. Where the board is specifically
designed for educational purposes
Hi Mark,
On 27-04-15 11:36, Mark Brown wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 04:14:33PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
On 26 April 2015 at 14:51, Maxime Ripard
No, you add a compatible for the device that is connected to the bus
through that slot.
There is no device connected in the slot by
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 08:53:16PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
Do you have to describe a modem or terminal emulator in DT to connect
it to your serial port? You just describe the port. So here you have a
SPI port and it should be described in the DT as faithfully as the
serial port.
Serial
On 27 April 2015 at 11:36, Mark Brown broo...@kernel.org wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 04:14:33PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
On 26 April 2015 at 14:51, Maxime Ripard
No, you add a compatible for the device that is connected to the bus
through that slot.
There is no device connected in
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 04:40:50PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
Please always provide context in your replies so people know what you're
talking about.
I've a feeling everyone in this thread is ignoring the
raspberry pi use-case. Where the board is specifically
designed for educational
Hi,
On 27-04-15 12:04, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi Mark,
On 27-04-15 11:36, Mark Brown wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 04:14:33PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
On 26 April 2015 at 14:51, Maxime Ripard
No, you add a compatible for the device that is connected to the bus
through that slot.
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 08:51:12AM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
On 26 April 2015 at 17:47, Maxime Ripard
maxime.rip...@free-electrons.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 04:40:50PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
I've a feeling everyone in this thread is ignoring the
raspberry pi
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:39:50AM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
On 27 April 2015 at 11:36, Mark Brown broo...@kernel.org wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 04:14:33PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
There is no device connected in the slot by design. The slot is there
for connecting random
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 04:14:33PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
On 26 April 2015 at 14:51, Maxime Ripard
No, you add a compatible for the device that is connected to the bus
through that slot.
There is no device connected in the slot by design. The slot is there
for connecting random
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 08:53:16PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
Also for driver prototyping you need a compatible which makes the
device accessible.
If no spidev general compatible is available people will just use
compatible for some random device which happens to bind to spidev and
On 27 April 2015 at 12:04, Maxime Ripard
maxime.rip...@free-electrons.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 08:53:16PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
Also for driver prototyping you need a compatible which makes the
device accessible.
If no spidev general compatible is available people will
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 02:51:13PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 02:38:18PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
I don't know if it's been suggested before, certainly nobody did the
work to make it happen. I don't think I have a massive objection in
principal.
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 12:04:12PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Have you seen my mail about the raspberry pi use-case? Using dt-overlays
simply is not an acceptable answer there. There are legitimate use-cases
for a generic spi bus concept with the bus only being accessible via
spidev.
On 27 April 2015 at 12:10, Mark Brown broo...@kernel.org wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 04:40:50PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
Please always provide context in your replies so people know what you're
talking about.
I've a feeling everyone in this thread is ignoring the
raspberry pi
On 2015-04-27 13:25, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 12:04:12PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Have you seen my mail about the raspberry pi use-case? Using dt-overlays
simply is not an acceptable answer there. There are legitimate use-cases
for a generic spi bus concept with the bus
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 04:14:31PM +0200, Martin Sperl wrote:
On 2015-04-27 13:25, Mark Brown wrote:
I don't think you've fully considered your use case here. As I said in
my reply to your earlier e-mail I think what you're looking for here is
something like better UI around overlays.
On 27 April 2015 at 17:13, Geert Uytterhoeven ge...@linux-m68k.org wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Michal Suchanek hramr...@gmail.com wrote:
When you have a serial port and just connect serial device to it with
no special requirement you just specify the serial port in DT and talk
to
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Michal Suchanek hramr...@gmail.com wrote:
When you have a serial port and just connect serial device to it with
no special requirement you just specify the serial port in DT and talk
to the device directly without any DT foo.
When there is a BT module with
On 27.04.2015, at 17:27, Mark Brown broo...@kernel.org wrote:
OK, so that is just a default overlay which is abusing the fact that we
will bind to spidev without a DT compatible and when the binding is
undocumented (which also applies to other devices and buses sadly).
Unfortunately
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:16:01AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 02:51:13PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 02:38:18PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
I don't know if it's been suggested before, certainly nobody did the
work to make it happen. I
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 06:25:26PM +0200, Martin Sperl wrote:
On 27.04.2015, at 17:27, Mark Brown broo...@kernel.org wrote:
OK, so that is just a default overlay which is abusing the fact that we
will bind to spidev without a DT compatible and when the binding is
undocumented (which also
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 07:30:36PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:16:01AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
lkml.org is being terrible as usual so I can't see half the thread (or
at least got fed up trying to get it to load)
A part of it is also here:
On 26 April 2015 at 17:54, Maxime Ripard
wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 05:33:36PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>> On 26 April 2015 at 16:33, Maxime Ripard
>> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 04:14:33PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>> >> On 26 April 2015 at 14:51, Maxime Ripard
>> >>
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 05:33:36PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> On 26 April 2015 at 16:33, Maxime Ripard
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 04:14:33PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> >> On 26 April 2015 at 14:51, Maxime Ripard
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 02:38:18PM +0200,
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 04:40:50PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've a feeling everyone in this thread is ignoring the
> raspberry pi use-case. Where the board is specifically
> designed for educational purposes and used with lots of
> peripherals which are usually programmed from
On 26 April 2015 at 16:33, Maxime Ripard
wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 04:14:33PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>> On 26 April 2015 at 14:51, Maxime Ripard
>> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 02:38:18PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>> >> On 26 April 2015 at 13:56, Martin Sperl wrote:
>>
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
