On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 7:16 PM, David Brownell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 16 May 2008, Grant Likely wrote:
In my mind; platform_data and the device tree are all about the same
thing: representation. In other words, how to describe the
configuration of the hardware independent of the
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 8:05 PM, David Brownell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 21 May 2008, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
+++ b/drivers/spi/spi_of.c
I think better placement for this is drivers/of, no?
Yes please.
Okay, I wasn't sure. Will do.
g.
--
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 12:26 AM, Grant Likely
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 8:05 PM, David Brownell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 21 May 2008, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
+++ b/drivers/spi/spi_of.c
I think better placement for this is drivers/of, no?
Yes please.
Grant Likely schrieb:
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 12:26 AM, Grant Likely
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 8:05 PM, David Brownell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 21 May 2008, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
+++ b/drivers/spi/spi_of.c
I think better placement for this is drivers/of,
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 11:14 AM, Jochen Friedrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Grant Likely schrieb:
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 12:26 AM, Grant Likely
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 8:05 PM, David Brownell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 21 May 2008, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
On Saturday 24 May 2008, Grant Likely wrote:
+++ b/drivers/spi/spi_of.c
I think better placement for this is drivers/of, no?
Yes please.
Okay, I wasn't sure. Will do.
I'm having second thoughts about this. I think this code is more SPI
centric than it is OF centric. ie. it is
On Saturday 24 May 2008, Grant Likely wrote:
Isn't the same true for drivers/of/gpio.c or drivers/of/of_i2c.c, as well?
I would argue 'yes!'
... all the more reason to have the SPI glue go there too,
matching the ACPI/PCI precedent as well as those others!
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 11:45 AM, David Brownell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 24 May 2008, Grant Likely wrote:
Isn't the same true for drivers/of/gpio.c or drivers/of/of_i2c.c, as well?
I would argue 'yes!'
... all the more reason to have the SPI glue go there too,
matching the
On Wednesday 21 May 2008, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
+++ b/drivers/spi/spi_of.c
I think better placement for this is drivers/of, no?
Yes please.
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 01:36:13PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
From: Grant Likely [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This patch adds support for populating an SPI bus based on data in the
OF device tree. This is useful for powerpc platforms which use the
device tree instead of discrete code for describing
Ok, elegance apart:-) You can use the SPI-bridge construct to also
describe simple SPI-chipselect configurations. But is it really a good
idea? Wouldn't it be better to handle these two cases separately?
It would be best to handle all these things that are specific to
a certain SPI controller
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 1:11 PM, Segher Boessenkool
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, elegance apart:-) You can use the SPI-bridge construct to also
describe simple SPI-chipselect configurations. But is it really a good
idea? Wouldn't it be better to handle these two cases separately?
It would be
On Friday 16 May 2008, Grant Likely wrote:
In my mind; platform_data and the device tree are all about the same
thing: representation. In other words, how to describe the
configuration of the hardware independent of the driver itself.
Platform_data isn't what I'd call independent of drivers.
On Mon, 19 May 2008 21:19:50 +0400
Anton Vorontsov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 07:09:00PM +0200, Gary Jennejohn wrote:
[snip extraneous content]
My problem was, and is, that there's no generic GPIO support for powerpc.
At least, not that I'm aware of. Please tell me if
On Mon, 19 May 2008, Grant Likely wrote:
I'm not so fond of this approach. cs-parent doesn't seem to make much
sense to me. It might be better to have a cs-handler property on the
SPI bus node instead of on the SPI slave nodes, but even then it
leaves a number of questions about what it
On Fri, 16 May 2008, Grant Likely wrote:
+However, the binding does not attempt to define the specific method for
+assigning chip select numbers. Since SPI chip select configuration is
+flexible and non-standardized, it is left out of this binding with the
+assumption that
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 7:17 AM, Guennadi Liakhovetski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2008, Grant Likely wrote:
+However, the binding does not attempt to define the specific method for
+assigning chip select numbers. Since SPI chip select configuration is
+flexible and
On Mon, 19 May 2008, Grant Likely wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 7:17 AM, Guennadi Liakhovetski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2008, Grant Likely wrote:
+However, the binding does not attempt to define the specific method
for
+assigning chip select numbers. Since
On Mon, 19 May 2008 09:57:21 -0600
Grant Likely [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 7:17 AM, Guennadi Liakhovetski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2008, Grant Likely wrote:
+However, the binding does not attempt to define the specific method
for
+
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 07:09:00PM +0200, Gary Jennejohn wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2008 09:57:21 -0600
Grant Likely [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 7:17 AM, Guennadi Liakhovetski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2008, Grant Likely wrote:
+However, the
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Guennadi Liakhovetski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2008, Grant Likely wrote:
But that is Linux internal
details; this discussion is about device tree bindings.
Note that I did say that drivers can define additional properties for
supporting chip
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Randy Dunlap [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2008 13:36:13 -0600 Grant Likely wrote:
diff --git a/Documentation/powerpc/booting-without-of.txt
b/Documentation/powerpc/booting-without-of.txt
index 1d2a772..452c242 100644
---
On Fri, 16 May 2008 13:36:13 -0600 Grant Likely wrote:
diff --git a/Documentation/powerpc/booting-without-of.txt
b/Documentation/powerpc/booting-without-of.txt
index 1d2a772..452c242 100644
--- a/Documentation/powerpc/booting-without-of.txt
+++ b/Documentation/powerpc/booting-without-of.txt
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 01:36:13PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
From: Grant Likely [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This patch adds support for populating an SPI bus based on data in the
OF device tree. This is useful for powerpc platforms which use the
device tree instead of discrete code for describing
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Anton Vorontsov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 01:36:13PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
+ /* Store a pointer to the node in the device structure */
+ of_node_get(nc);
+ spi-dev.archdata.of_node = nc;
+
+
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 04:14:23PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Anton Vorontsov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 01:36:13PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
+ /* Store a pointer to the node in the device structure */
+
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Anton Vorontsov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 04:14:23PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
Maybe this code could do something like
spi-dev.platform_data = nc-data;
and board code would fill nc-data at early stages? This needs to be a
27 matches
Mail list logo
