Hi Rob,
On 14/06/18 14:59, Rob Herring wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 2:53 AM, Suzuki K Poulose
wrote:
On 13/06/18 22:07, Matt Sealey wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Mathieu Poirier
So, if the suggestion is to use an existing property "unit", I am fine
with it, if people agree
Hi Rob,
On 14/06/18 14:59, Rob Herring wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 2:53 AM, Suzuki K Poulose
wrote:
On 13/06/18 22:07, Matt Sealey wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Mathieu Poirier
So, if the suggestion is to use an existing property "unit", I am fine
with it, if people agree
On 14/06/18 14:59, Rob Herring wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 2:53 AM, Suzuki K Poulose
wrote:
On 13/06/18 22:07, Matt Sealey wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Mathieu Poirier
So, if the suggestion is to use an existing property "unit", I am fine
with it, if people agree to it.
On 14/06/18 14:59, Rob Herring wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 2:53 AM, Suzuki K Poulose
wrote:
On 13/06/18 22:07, Matt Sealey wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Mathieu Poirier
So, if the suggestion is to use an existing property "unit", I am fine
with it, if people agree to it.
Hi Rob,
To take this in a somewhat different direction...
> > No, the above comment is about using "unit" ( if it is a standard
> > property for specifying something specific to hardware) instead of
> > "coresight,hwid". I would prefer to stick to the DT graph bindings,
> > because :
>
> "unit"
Hi Rob,
To take this in a somewhat different direction...
> > No, the above comment is about using "unit" ( if it is a standard
> > property for specifying something specific to hardware) instead of
> > "coresight,hwid". I would prefer to stick to the DT graph bindings,
> > because :
>
> "unit"
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 2:53 AM, Suzuki K Poulose
wrote:
> On 13/06/18 22:07, Matt Sealey wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Mathieu Poirier
>>>
So, if the suggestion is to use an existing property "unit", I am fine
with it, if people agree to it.
>>>
>>>
>>> If
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 2:53 AM, Suzuki K Poulose
wrote:
> On 13/06/18 22:07, Matt Sealey wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Mathieu Poirier
>>>
So, if the suggestion is to use an existing property "unit", I am fine
with it, if people agree to it.
>>>
>>>
>>> If
On 13/06/18 22:07, Matt Sealey wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Mathieu Poirier
So, if the suggestion is to use an existing property "unit", I am fine
with it, if people agree to it.
If we're going to have something sharply different than ACPI I prefer
Rob's idea.
No, the above
On 13/06/18 22:07, Matt Sealey wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Mathieu Poirier
So, if the suggestion is to use an existing property "unit", I am fine
with it, if people agree to it.
If we're going to have something sharply different than ACPI I prefer
Rob's idea.
No, the above
> -Original Message-
> From: Mathieu Poirier
>
> > So, if the suggestion is to use an existing property "unit", I am fine
> > with it, if people agree to it.
>
> If we're going to have something sharply different than ACPI I prefer
> Rob's idea.
What are you trying to say about being
> -Original Message-
> From: Mathieu Poirier
>
> > So, if the suggestion is to use an existing property "unit", I am fine
> > with it, if people agree to it.
>
> If we're going to have something sharply different than ACPI I prefer
> Rob's idea.
What are you trying to say about being
On 13 June 2018 at 11:07, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> Hi Matt,
>
> On 13/06/18 16:47, Matt Sealey wrote:
>>
>> Hi Suzuki,
>>
Why not use “unit”?
I believe we had this discussion years ago about numbering serial ports
and sdhci (i.e. how do you know it’s UART0 or UART1 from just
On 13 June 2018 at 11:07, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> Hi Matt,
>
> On 13/06/18 16:47, Matt Sealey wrote:
>>
>> Hi Suzuki,
>>
Why not use “unit”?
I believe we had this discussion years ago about numbering serial ports
and sdhci (i.e. how do you know it’s UART0 or UART1 from just
Hi Matt,
On 13/06/18 16:47, Matt Sealey wrote:
Hi Suzuki,
Why not use “unit”?
I believe we had this discussion years ago about numbering serial ports
and sdhci (i.e. how do you know it’s UART0 or UART1 from just the address?
Some SoC’s don’t address sequentially *or* in a forward direction)
Hi Matt,
On 13/06/18 16:47, Matt Sealey wrote:
Hi Suzuki,
Why not use “unit”?
I believe we had this discussion years ago about numbering serial ports
and sdhci (i.e. how do you know it’s UART0 or UART1 from just the address?
Some SoC’s don’t address sequentially *or* in a forward direction)
Hi Suzuki,
> > Why not use “unit”?
> >
> > I believe we had this discussion years ago about numbering serial ports
> > and sdhci (i.e. how do you know it’s UART0 or UART1 from just the address?
> > Some SoC’s don’t address sequentially *or* in a forward direction) - I
> > believe it’s not exactly
Hi Suzuki,
> > Why not use “unit”?
> >
> > I believe we had this discussion years ago about numbering serial ports
> > and sdhci (i.e. how do you know it’s UART0 or UART1 from just the address?
> > Some SoC’s don’t address sequentially *or* in a forward direction) - I
> > believe it’s not exactly
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 7:35 AM, Suzuki K Poulose
wrote:
> Hi Matt,
>
> Thanks for your comments, responses inline.
>
> On 13/06/18 13:49, Matt Sealey wrote:
>>
>> Suzuki,
>>
>> Why not use “unit”?
>>
>> I believe we had this discussion years ago about numbering serial ports
>> and sdhci (i.e.
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 7:35 AM, Suzuki K Poulose
wrote:
> Hi Matt,
>
> Thanks for your comments, responses inline.
>
> On 13/06/18 13:49, Matt Sealey wrote:
>>
>> Suzuki,
>>
>> Why not use “unit”?
>>
>> I believe we had this discussion years ago about numbering serial ports
>> and sdhci (i.e.
Hi Matt,
Thanks for your comments, responses inline.
On 13/06/18 13:49, Matt Sealey wrote:
Suzuki,
Why not use “unit”?
I believe we had this discussion years ago about numbering serial ports and
sdhci (i.e. how do you know it’s UART0 or UART1 from just the address? Some
SoC’s don’t address
Hi Matt,
Thanks for your comments, responses inline.
On 13/06/18 13:49, Matt Sealey wrote:
Suzuki,
Why not use “unit”?
I believe we had this discussion years ago about numbering serial ports and
sdhci (i.e. how do you know it’s UART0 or UART1 from just the address? Some
SoC’s don’t address
Suzuki,
Why not use “unit”?
I believe we had this discussion years ago about numbering serial ports and
sdhci (i.e. how do you know it’s UART0 or UART1 from just the address? Some
SoC’s don’t address sequentially *or* in a forward direction) - I believe it’s
not exactly codified in ePAPR, not
Suzuki,
Why not use “unit”?
I believe we had this discussion years ago about numbering serial ports and
sdhci (i.e. how do you know it’s UART0 or UART1 from just the address? Some
SoC’s don’t address sequentially *or* in a forward direction) - I believe it’s
not exactly codified in ePAPR, not
Hi Rob,
On 12/06/18 21:48, Rob Herring wrote:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 02:16:05PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
The coresight drivers relied on default bindings for graph
in DT, while reusing the "reg" field of the "ports" to indicate
the actual hardware port number for the connections.
Hi Rob,
On 12/06/18 21:48, Rob Herring wrote:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 02:16:05PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
The coresight drivers relied on default bindings for graph
in DT, while reusing the "reg" field of the "ports" to indicate
the actual hardware port number for the connections.
On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 02:16:05PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> The coresight drivers relied on default bindings for graph
> in DT, while reusing the "reg" field of the "ports" to indicate
> the actual hardware port number for the connections. However,
> with the rules getting stricter w.r.t
On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 02:16:05PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> The coresight drivers relied on default bindings for graph
> in DT, while reusing the "reg" field of the "ports" to indicate
> the actual hardware port number for the connections. However,
> with the rules getting stricter w.r.t
On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 02:16:05PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> The coresight drivers relied on default bindings for graph
> in DT, while reusing the "reg" field of the "ports" to indicate
> the actual hardware port number for the connections. However,
> with the rules getting stricter w.r.t
On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 02:16:05PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> The coresight drivers relied on default bindings for graph
> in DT, while reusing the "reg" field of the "ports" to indicate
> the actual hardware port number for the connections. However,
> with the rules getting stricter w.r.t
30 matches
Mail list logo
