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
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.
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
> >
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
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!
> > > >
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
>
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
> >
>
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
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
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
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
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
18 matches
Mail list logo