Re: UIO device tree bindings.

2013-04-02 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! > > > > > Or maybe we can do some magic with module parameter. That should be > > > > > enough for expected use. > > > > > > > > > I don't think that would make a difference. I mean, just take ns16550 > > > > as another > > > > example. No one has problems declaring some block of hardware

Re: UIO device tree bindings.

2013-04-02 Thread Guenter Roeck
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 03:46:45PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > > Or maybe we can do some magic with module parameter. That should be > > > > enough for expected use. > > > > > > > I don't think that would make a difference. I mean, just take ns16550 as > > > another > > > example.

Re: UIO device tree bindings.

2013-04-02 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! > > > Or maybe we can do some magic with module parameter. That should be > > > enough for expected use. > > > > > I don't think that would make a difference. I mean, just take ns16550 as > > another > > example. No one has problems declaring some block of hardware addresses to > > be > >

Re: UIO device tree bindings.

2013-04-02 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! > > Or maybe we can do some magic with module parameter. That should be > > enough for expected use. > > > I don't think that would make a difference. I mean, just take ns16550 as > another > example. No one has problems declaring some block of hardware addresses to be > compatible with

Re: UIO device tree bindings.

2013-04-02 Thread Guenter Roeck
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 01:51:51PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Mon 2013-04-01 19:42:12, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 05:40:08PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > On Mon 2013-04-01 16:23:36, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > Hi! > > > >

Re: UIO device tree bindings.

2013-04-02 Thread Pavel Machek
On Mon 2013-04-01 19:42:12, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 05:40:08PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > On Mon 2013-04-01 16:23:36, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > > I'd like to get uio device tree bindings to work -- with recent FPGA >

Re: UIO device tree bindings.

2013-04-02 Thread Pavel Machek
On Mon 2013-04-01 19:42:12, Guenter Roeck wrote: On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 05:40:08PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: On Mon 2013-04-01 16:23:36, Pavel Machek wrote: Hi! I'd like to get uio device tree bindings to work -- with recent FPGA parts it will be important. Latest version I see

Re: UIO device tree bindings.

2013-04-02 Thread Guenter Roeck
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 01:51:51PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: On Mon 2013-04-01 19:42:12, Guenter Roeck wrote: On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 05:40:08PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: On Mon 2013-04-01 16:23:36, Pavel Machek wrote: Hi! I'd like to get uio device tree bindings to work

Re: UIO device tree bindings.

2013-04-02 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! Or maybe we can do some magic with module parameter. That should be enough for expected use. I don't think that would make a difference. I mean, just take ns16550 as another example. No one has problems declaring some block of hardware addresses to be compatible with ns16550, even

Re: UIO device tree bindings.

2013-04-02 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! Or maybe we can do some magic with module parameter. That should be enough for expected use. I don't think that would make a difference. I mean, just take ns16550 as another example. No one has problems declaring some block of hardware addresses to be compatible with

Re: UIO device tree bindings.

2013-04-02 Thread Guenter Roeck
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 03:46:45PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: Hi! Or maybe we can do some magic with module parameter. That should be enough for expected use. I don't think that would make a difference. I mean, just take ns16550 as another example. No one has problems

Re: UIO device tree bindings.

2013-04-02 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! Or maybe we can do some magic with module parameter. That should be enough for expected use. I don't think that would make a difference. I mean, just take ns16550 as another example. No one has problems declaring some block of hardware addresses to be

Re: UIO device tree bindings.

2013-04-01 Thread Guenter Roeck
On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 05:40:08PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Mon 2013-04-01 16:23:36, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > I'd like to get uio device tree bindings to work -- with recent FPGA > > parts it will be important. Latest version I see is > > >

Re: UIO device tree bindings.

2013-04-01 Thread Pavel Machek
On Mon 2013-04-01 16:23:36, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > I'd like to get uio device tree bindings to work -- with recent FPGA > parts it will be important. Latest version I see is > > https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2009-June/073087.html > > ... Is ther

UIO device tree bindings.

2013-04-01 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! I'd like to get uio device tree bindings to work -- with recent FPGA parts it will be important. Latest version I see is https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2009-June/073087.html ... Is there anything newer? I red the discussion, and main problem seems to be the "tell k

UIO device tree bindings.

2013-04-01 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! I'd like to get uio device tree bindings to work -- with recent FPGA parts it will be important. Latest version I see is https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2009-June/073087.html ... Is there anything newer? I red the discussion, and main problem seems to be the tell kernel

Re: UIO device tree bindings.

2013-04-01 Thread Pavel Machek
On Mon 2013-04-01 16:23:36, Pavel Machek wrote: Hi! I'd like to get uio device tree bindings to work -- with recent FPGA parts it will be important. Latest version I see is https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2009-June/073087.html ... Is there anything newer? I red

Re: UIO device tree bindings.

2013-04-01 Thread Guenter Roeck
On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 05:40:08PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: On Mon 2013-04-01 16:23:36, Pavel Machek wrote: Hi! I'd like to get uio device tree bindings to work -- with recent FPGA parts it will be important. Latest version I see is https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev