Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] PM / Domains: Add support for devices with multiple domains

2016-09-21 Thread Jon Hunter
Hi Geert, On 21/09/16 09:53, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Jon, > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Jon Hunter wrote: >> Some devices may require more than one PM domain to operate and this is >> not currently by the PM domain framework. Furthermore, the current Linux

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] PM / Domains: Add support for devices with multiple domains

2016-09-21 Thread Geert Uytterhoeven
Hi Jon, On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Jon Hunter wrote: > Some devices may require more than one PM domain to operate and this is > not currently by the PM domain framework. Furthermore, the current Linux > 'device' structure only allows devices to be associated with a

Re: [PATCH/RFC v2 1/7] spi: Document DT bindings for SPI controllers in slave mode

2016-09-21 Thread Geert Uytterhoeven
Hi Rob, On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:50:40PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven >> --- >> v2: >> - Do not create a child node in SPI slave mode. Instead, add an >>

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] PM / Domains: Add support for devices with multiple domains

2016-09-21 Thread Jon Hunter
Hi Geert, On 21/09/16 09:53, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Jon, > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Jon Hunter wrote: >> Some devices may require more than one PM domain to operate and this is >> not currently by the PM domain framework. Furthermore, the current Linux

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] PM / Domains: Add support for devices with multiple domains

2016-09-21 Thread Geert Uytterhoeven
Hi Jon, On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Jon Hunter wrote: > On 21/09/16 09:53, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Jon Hunter wrote: >>> Some devices may require more than one PM domain to operate and this is >>> not

Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] mmc: add define for R1 response without CRC

2016-09-21 Thread Jaehoon Chung
On 09/21/2016 03:00 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 06:25:37PM +0900, Jaehoon Chung wrote: >> Hi Wolfram, >> >> On 09/20/2016 05:57 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote: >>> The core uses it for polling. Give drivers a proper define handle this >>> case like for other response types. >>> >>>

Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] mmc: rtsx_pci: use new macro for R1 without CRC

2016-09-21 Thread Wolfram Sang
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 06:29:58PM +0900, Jaehoon Chung wrote: > Hi Wolfram, > > Add the commit message. Can do, but would be highly redundant with the subject. Ulf, you want one, too? > > On 09/20/2016 05:57 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang

Re: [PATCH v3 4/6] mmc: tmio: add eMMC support

2016-09-21 Thread Wolfram Sang
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 06:35:00PM +0900, Jaehoon Chung wrote: > On 09/20/2016 05:57 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > We need to add R1 without CRC support, refactor the bus width routine a > > little and extend a quirk check. To support "non-removable;" we need a > > workaround which will be hopefully

Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] ARM: cleanup PCI specific configs

2016-09-21 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 3:49:04 PM CEST Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > This series was initially sent to add support for two PCIe > ports in dra7. This included selecting PCI_DOMAINS config > in SOC_DRA7XX. > > However from the review, PCI_DOMAINS can instead be selected > from