On Saturday 24 August 2013 01:24 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Friday 23 August 2013 02:29 PM, Mugunthan V N wrote:
On Friday 23 August 2013 11:40 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Friday 23 August 2013 01:39 PM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
On 8/23/2013 10:58 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Friday 23
On Monday 26 August 2013 11:29 AM, Mugunthan V N wrote:
On Saturday 24 August 2013 01:24 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Friday 23 August 2013 02:29 PM, Mugunthan V N wrote:
On Friday 23 August 2013 11:40 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Friday 23 August 2013 01:39 PM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
On
On Friday 23 August 2013 10:26 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Friday 23 August 2013 12:30 PM, Daniel Mack wrote:
On 23.08.2013 16:23, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Friday 23 August 2013 10:16 AM, Daniel Mack wrote:
+static const struct of_device_id cpsw_of_mtable[] = {
+{
+
On Friday 23 August 2013 10:16 AM, Daniel Mack wrote:
In order to support features that are specific to the AM335x IP, we have
to add hardware types and another compatible string.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Mack zon...@gmail.com
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/cpsw.txt | 3 ++-
Hi Santosh,
[...]
+static const struct of_device_id cpsw_of_mtable[] = {
+ {
+ .compatible = ti,am3352-cpsw,
I didn't notice this earlier, but can't you use the IP version
as a compatible instead of using a SOC name. Whats really SOC specific
on this IP ? Sorry i have
On Friday 23 August 2013 11:22 AM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
Hi Santosh,
[...]
+static const struct of_device_id cpsw_of_mtable[] = {
+{
+.compatible= ti,am3352-cpsw,
I didn't notice this earlier, but can't you use the IP version
as a compatible instead of using a SOC name.
On 23.08.2013 16:23, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Friday 23 August 2013 10:16 AM, Daniel Mack wrote:
+static const struct of_device_id cpsw_of_mtable[] = {
+{
+.compatible = ti,am3352-cpsw,
I didn't notice this earlier, but can't you use the IP version
as a compatible
On 8/23/2013 7:53 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Friday 23 August 2013 10:16 AM, Daniel Mack wrote:
In order to support features that are specific to the AM335x IP, we have
to add hardware types and another compatible string.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Mack zon...@gmail.com
---
On Friday 23 August 2013 07:53 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Friday 23 August 2013 10:16 AM, Daniel Mack wrote:
In order to support features that are specific to the AM335x IP, we have
to add hardware types and another compatible string.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Mack zon...@gmail.com
---
On Friday 23 August 2013 12:30 PM, Daniel Mack wrote:
On 23.08.2013 16:23, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Friday 23 August 2013 10:16 AM, Daniel Mack wrote:
+static const struct of_device_id cpsw_of_mtable[] = {
+ {
+ .compatible = ti,am3352-cpsw,
I didn't notice this
On Friday 23 August 2013 12:45 PM, Mugunthan V N wrote:
On Friday 23 August 2013 07:53 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Friday 23 August 2013 10:16 AM, Daniel Mack wrote:
In order to support features that are specific to the AM335x IP, we have
to add hardware types and another compatible
On 8/23/2013 10:26 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Friday 23 August 2013 12:30 PM, Daniel Mack wrote:
On 23.08.2013 16:23, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Friday 23 August 2013 10:16 AM, Daniel Mack wrote:
+static const struct of_device_id cpsw_of_mtable[] = {
+ {
+ .compatible
On 23.08.2013 19:09, Sekhar Nori wrote:
On 8/23/2013 10:26 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
So just stick the IP version or call it cpsw-v1... cpsw-v2 etc.
If this could be handled using IP version then the right way would be to
just read the IP version from hardware and use it. No need of DT
On Friday 23 August 2013 10:26 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Friday 23 August 2013 12:30 PM, Daniel Mack wrote:
On 23.08.2013 16:23, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Friday 23 August 2013 10:16 AM, Daniel Mack wrote:
+static const struct of_device_id cpsw_of_mtable[] = {
+ {
+
On 23.08.2013 19:19, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Friday 23 August 2013 01:09 PM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
On 8/23/2013 10:26 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
So just stick the IP version or call it cpsw-v1... cpsw-v2 etc.
If this could be handled using IP version then the right way would be to
just
On Friday 23 August 2013 01:09 PM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
On 8/23/2013 10:26 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Friday 23 August 2013 12:30 PM, Daniel Mack wrote:
On 23.08.2013 16:23, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Friday 23 August 2013 10:16 AM, Daniel Mack wrote:
+static const struct
On Friday 23 August 2013 01:24 PM, Daniel Mack wrote:
On 23.08.2013 19:19, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Friday 23 August 2013 01:09 PM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
On 8/23/2013 10:26 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
So just stick the IP version or call it cpsw-v1... cpsw-v2 etc.
If this could be handled
On 8/23/2013 10:58 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Friday 23 August 2013 01:24 PM, Daniel Mack wrote:
On 23.08.2013 19:19, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Friday 23 August 2013 01:09 PM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
On 8/23/2013 10:26 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
So just stick the IP version or call it
On Friday 23 August 2013 01:39 PM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
On 8/23/2013 10:58 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Friday 23 August 2013 01:24 PM, Daniel Mack wrote:
On 23.08.2013 19:19, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Friday 23 August 2013 01:09 PM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
On 8/23/2013 10:26 PM, Santosh
On Friday 23 August 2013 11:40 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Friday 23 August 2013 01:39 PM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
On 8/23/2013 10:58 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Friday 23 August 2013 01:24 PM, Daniel Mack wrote:
On 23.08.2013 19:19, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Friday 23 August 2013 01:09
On Friday 23 August 2013 02:29 PM, Mugunthan V N wrote:
On Friday 23 August 2013 11:40 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Friday 23 August 2013 01:39 PM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
On 8/23/2013 10:58 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Friday 23 August 2013 01:24 PM, Daniel Mack wrote:
On 23.08.2013 19:19,
21 matches
Mail list logo
