On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 02:49:21AM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
I knew this would be controversial and that's why I didn't mean it to be a
patch
but a RFC :)
The problem basically is that you
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas
martinez.jav...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 02:49:21AM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
I knew this would be controversial and
On 02/18/2013 02:51 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas
martinez.jav...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 02:49:21AM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 12:35:43PM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 02:49:21AM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
I knew this would be controversial and that's why I
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Sascha Hauer s.ha...@pengutronix.de wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 12:35:43PM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 02:49:21AM +0100, Javier
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:33:19AM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Sascha Hauer s.ha...@pengutronix.de wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 12:35:43PM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Sascha Hauer s.ha...@pengutronix.de wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:33:19AM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Sascha Hauer s.ha...@pengutronix.de wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 12:35:43PM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 02:49:21AM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
I knew this would be controversial and that's why I didn't mean it to be a
patch
but a RFC :)
The problem basically is that you have to associate the platform device with
its
corresponding DT device node because it
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 02:49:21AM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
I knew this would be controversial and that's why I didn't mean it to be a
patch
but a RFC :)
The problem basically is that you
When using Device Trees, it is necessary to associate a
device node with a platform device.
Usually this device node has to used in the device probe
function (e.g: to initizalize the pinctrl pads assocaited
with the device).
So, platform code needs to pass a device node as a platform
device info
On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 09:44:25PM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
When using Device Trees, it is necessary to associate a
device node with a platform device.
Usually this device node has to used in the device probe
function (e.g: to initizalize the pinctrl pads assocaited
with the
Hi Greg,
Thanks a lot for your feedback.
On 02/10/2013 02:02 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 09:44:25PM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
When using Device Trees, it is necessary to associate a
device node with a platform device.
Usually this device node has to
12 matches
Mail list logo
