On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 11:00 PM, Daniel Mack zon...@gmail.com wrote:
cc devicetree-discuss. Here's a reference to the full thread:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/145221/
Interesting. I only just was made aware of this thread. There is a
similar discussion going on
On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 10:24:06AM +0100, Daniel Mack wrote:
On 01.11.2012 04:26, David Gibson wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 09:24:11AM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote:
I would especially like to know where such a new functionality should
live, which data types it should operate on and what
On 03.11.2012 16:25, David Gibson wrote:
On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 10:24:06AM +0100, Daniel Mack wrote:
On 01.11.2012 04:26, David Gibson wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 09:24:11AM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote:
I would especially like to know where such a new functionality should
live, which data
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:36:08PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 10/31/2012 05:56 PM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
On 10/31/2012 1:00 PM, Daniel Mack wrote:
cc devicetree-discuss. Here's a reference to the full thread:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/145221/
On
On 10/31/2012 1:00 PM, Daniel Mack wrote:
cc devicetree-discuss. Here's a reference to the full thread:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/145221/
On 26.10.2012 20:39, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 10/24/2012 03:47 AM, Daniel Mack wrote:
Hi,
a project I'm involved in
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 09:24:11AM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote:
On 26.10.2012 02:53, David Gibson wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:46:32PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Daniel,
In message 50893633.6070...@gmail.com you wrote:
Overwrites must be addressed in the first place. The most
On 10/31/2012 6:36 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 10/31/2012 05:56 PM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
On 10/31/2012 1:00 PM, Daniel Mack wrote:
cc devicetree-discuss. Here's a reference to the full thread:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/145221/
On 26.10.2012 20:39, Stephen
On 01.11.2012 04:26, David Gibson wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 09:24:11AM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote:
I would especially like to know where such a new functionality should
live, which data types it should operate on and what would be an
appropriate name for it.
So.. the first thought I
cc devicetree-discuss. Here's a reference to the full thread:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/145221/
On 26.10.2012 20:39, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 10/24/2012 03:47 AM, Daniel Mack wrote:
Hi,
a project I'm involved in uses a module/baseboard combo, and components
on
On 10/31/2012 05:00 PM, Daniel Mack wrote:
cc devicetree-discuss. Here's a reference to the full thread:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/145221/
On 26.10.2012 20:39, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 10/24/2012 03:47 AM, Daniel Mack wrote:
Hi,
a project I'm involved in
On 01.11.2012 00:13, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 10/31/2012 05:00 PM, Daniel Mack wrote:
cc devicetree-discuss. Here's a reference to the full thread:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/145221/
On 26.10.2012 20:39, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 10/24/2012 03:47 AM, Daniel Mack
On 10/31/2012 05:56 PM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
On 10/31/2012 1:00 PM, Daniel Mack wrote:
cc devicetree-discuss. Here's a reference to the full thread:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/145221/
On 26.10.2012 20:39, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 10/24/2012 03:47 AM, Daniel
On 26.10.2012 02:53, David Gibson wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:46:32PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Daniel,
In message 50893633.6070...@gmail.com you wrote:
Overwrites must be addressed in the first place. The most common example
is that a more generic part (the module tree)
Hi Daniel,
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:24 AM, Daniel Mack zon...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26.10.2012 02:53, David Gibson wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:46:32PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Daniel,
In message 50893633.6070...@gmail.com you wrote:
Overwrites must be addressed in the first
On 10/24/2012 03:47 AM, Daniel Mack wrote:
Hi,
a project I'm involved in uses a module/baseboard combo, and components
on either board are described in DT. I'm currently using separate dts
files which build upon each other with include statements, which works
fine for development.
In
Dear Stephen Warren,
In message 508ad8f9.8030...@wwwdotorg.org you wrote:
Simply overlaying two DTBs on top of each-other (in the same fashion
that dtc's /include/ statement would do at compile-time) might not be
fully general enough, although perhaps it would be sufficient for your
Dear Daniel,
In message 5087b919.2010...@gmail.com you wrote:
So let's say we have n versions of the baseboard and m versions of the
module, we would much like to only prepare n + m files, instead of n * m
by pre-compiling every possible combination (some of which may actually
never occur
Hi Wolfgang,
On 25.10.2012 14:44, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
In message 5087b919.2010...@gmail.com you wrote:
So let's say we have n versions of the baseboard and m versions of the
module, we would much like to only prepare n + m files, instead of n * m
by pre-compiling every possible combination
Dear Daniel,
In message 50893633.6070...@gmail.com you wrote:
Overwrites must be addressed in the first place. The most common example
is that a more generic part (the module tree) registers all details
about a peripheral up-front but then sets its status to 'disabled'. That
way, the more
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:46:32PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Daniel,
In message 50893633.6070...@gmail.com you wrote:
Overwrites must be addressed in the first place. The most common example
is that a more generic part (the module tree) registers all details
about a peripheral
Hi,
a project I'm involved in uses a module/baseboard combo, and components
on either board are described in DT. I'm currently using separate dts
files which build upon each other with include statements, which works
fine for development.
In production though, we will certainly have running
21 matches
Mail list logo
