I am getting a kernel build error at version 5.6-rc1:
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c: In function 'cea_mode_alternate_timings':
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c:3275:2: error: call to '__compiletime_assert_3282'
declared with attribute error: BUILD_BUG_ON failed: cea_mode_for_vic(8)->vtotal
!= 262 || cea_
On 2/11/20 12:48 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
> I am getting a kernel build error at version 5.6-rc1:
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c: In function 'cea_mode_alternate_timings':
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c:3275:2: error: call to '__compiletime_assert_3282'
> declared
On 9/20/19 9:57 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> Following up from LPC discussions...
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 8:30 PM Brendan Higgins
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 5:22 PM Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/27/19 7:52 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
&
Hi Brendan,
I am only responding to this because you asked me to in the v4 thread.
Thank you for evaluating my comments in the v4 thread and asking me to
comment on v5
On 6/17/19 1:25 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> ## TL;DR
>
> A not so quick follow-up to Stephen's suggestions on PATCH v4. Nothin
On 5/14/19 1:38 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 03:13:40PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 5/10/19 9:17 AM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2019-05-09 11:18 p.m., Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>
>>>> YES, kselftest ha
On 5/11/19 10:33 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 02:12:40PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> However, the reply is incorrect. Kselftest in-kernel tests (which
>> is the context here) can be configured as built in instead of as
>> a module, and built
Hi Ted,
I'll try answering this again.
The first time I was a little flippant in part of my answer because I
thought your comments somewhat flippant. This time I'll provide a
more complete answer.
On 5/8/19 7:13 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 5/8/19 6:58 PM, Theodore Ts'o wro
On 5/9/19 4:40 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>
>
> On 2019-05-09 5:30 p.m., Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>> On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 04:20:05PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>>>
>>> The second item, arguably, does have significant overlap with kselftest.
>>> Whether you are running short tests in a light wei
On 5/8/19 6:44 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 05:58:49PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>
>> If KUnit is added to the kernel, and a subsystem that I am submitting
>> code for has chosen to use KUnit instead of kselftest, then yes, I do
>> *have* to
On 5/8/19 6:58 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 05:43:35PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> kselftest provides a mechanism for in-kernel tests via modules. For
>> example, see:
>>
>> tools/testing/selftests/vm/run_vmtests invokes:
>> tool
On 5/7/19 1:01 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 08:14:12PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 5/1/19 4:01 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>> ## TLDR
>>>
>>> I rebased the last patchset on 5.1-rc7 in hopes that we can get this in
>>> 5.2.
>>&
Hi Ted,
On 5/7/19 10:22 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 10:01:19AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
Not very helpful to cut the text here, plus not explicitly indicating that
text was cut (yes, I know the ">>>" will be a clue for the careful reader),
losing the set up for my question.
>>
On 5/7/19 8:23 AM, shuah wrote:
> On 5/7/19 2:01 AM, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 08:14:12PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>> On 5/1/19 4:01 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>>> ## TLDR
>>>>
>>>> I rebased the last patchse
On 5/1/19 4:01 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> ## TLDR
>
> I rebased the last patchset on 5.1-rc7 in hopes that we can get this in
> 5.2.
>
> Shuah, I think you, Greg KH, and myself talked off thread, and we agreed
> we would merge through your tree when the time came? Am I remembering
> correctly?
On 5/3/19 4:14 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>> On 5/2/19 10:36 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 6:45 PM Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/2/19 4:45 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 2:16 PM Frank
On 5/2/19 10:36 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 6:45 PM Frank Rowand wrote:
>>
>> On 5/2/19 4:45 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 2:16 PM Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/2/19 11:07 AM, Brendan Higgins wro
On 5/2/19 4:45 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 2:16 PM Frank Rowand wrote:
>>
>> On 5/2/19 11:07 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 4:02 AM Greg KH wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 04:01:21PM -07
On 5/2/19 1:25 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 4:00 AM Greg KH wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 04:01:13PM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>> A lot of the expectation and assertion infrastructure prints out fairly
>>> complicated test failure messages, so add a C++ style log
On 5/2/19 11:07 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 4:02 AM Greg KH wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 04:01:21PM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>> From: Felix Guo
>>>
>>> The ultimate goal is to create minimal isolated test binaries; in the
>>> meantime we are using UML to prov
On 2/14/19 1:37 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> Split out a couple of test cases that these features in base.c from the
> unittest.c monolith. The intention is that we will eventually split out
> all test cases and group them together based on what portion of device
> tree they test.
I still object t
On 3/21/19 5:22 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 2/27/19 7:52 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
< snip >
>> Now I know that, hermeticity especially, but other features as well
>> (test suite summary, error on unused test case function, etc) are not
>> actually in KUnit as it
On 3/21/19 4:33 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 3:27 PM Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2019-03-21 4:07 p.m., Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>> A couple of points, as for needing CONFIG_PCI; my plan to deal with
>>> that type of thing has been that we would add support for a KU
On 2/27/19 11:42 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 10:44 PM Frank Rowand wrote:
>>
>> On 2/19/19 7:39 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:52 AM Frank Rowand
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/14/19 1:37
On 2/27/19 7:52 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 12:45 PM Frank Rowand wrote:
>>
>> On 2/18/19 2:25 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>> On 2/15/19 2:56 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 6:05 PM Frank Rowand
>>>>
On 2/14/19 1:37 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> Split up the super large test cases of_unittest_find_node_by_name and
> of_unittest_dynamic into properly sized and defined test cases.
I also still object to this patch.
-Frank
>
> Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins
> ---
> drivers/of/base-test.c | 2
On 3/4/19 3:01 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 1:38 PM Brendan Higgins
> wrote:
>>
>> This patch set proposes KUnit, a lightweight unit testing and mocking
>> framework for the Linux kernel.
>>
>
>
>
>> ## More information on KUnit
>>
>> There is a bunch of documentation ne
On 12/5/18 3:10 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 5:49 AM Rob Herring wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 5:40 AM Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Brendan, Rob,
>>>
>>> Pulling a comment from way back in the v1 patch thread:
On 3/21/19 6:30 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 5:22 PM Frank Rowand wrote:
>>
>> On 2/27/19 7:52 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
< snip > but thanks for the comments in the snipped section.
>>
>> Thanks for leaving 18/19 and 19/19 off in
On 2/18/19 2:25 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 2/15/19 2:56 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 6:05 PM Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/14/19 4:56 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 3:57 PM Frank Rowand
>>>
On 2/20/19 12:44 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 2/18/19 2:25 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 2/15/19 2:56 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 6:05 PM Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/14/19 4:56 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>
On 2/19/19 7:39 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:52 AM Frank Rowand wrote:
>>
>> On 2/14/19 1:37 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>> Add support for aborting/bailing out of test cases. Needed for
>>> implementing assertions.
>&
On 2/19/19 10:34 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 12:02 PM Frank Rowand wrote:
>
>> I have not read through the patches in any detail. I have read some of
>> the code to try to understand the patches to the devicetree unit tests.
>> So that may lim
On 2/12/19 5:44 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 12:56 PM Rob Herring wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 1:38 PM Brendan Higgins
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Migrate tests without any cleanup, or modifying test logic in anyway to
>>> run under KUnit using the KUnit expectation and asse
On 2/14/19 1:37 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> This patch set proposes KUnit, a lightweight unit testing and mocking
> framework for the Linux kernel.
>
> Unlike Autotest and kselftest, KUnit is a true unit testing framework;
> it does not require installing the kernel on a test machine or in a VM
>
On 2/14/19 1:37 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> Add support for aborting/bailing out of test cases. Needed for
> implementing assertions.
>
> Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins
> ---
> Changes Since Last Version
> - This patch is new introducing a new cross-architecture way to abort
>out of a test
On 2/15/19 2:56 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 6:05 PM Frank Rowand wrote:
>>
>> On 2/14/19 4:56 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 3:57 PM Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 12/5/18 3:54 PM, Brendan Hig
On 2/14/19 4:56 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 3:57 PM Frank Rowand wrote:
>>
>> On 12/5/18 3:54 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 2:58 AM Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Brendan,
>>>>
>>
On 12/5/18 3:54 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 2:58 AM Frank Rowand wrote:
>>
>> Hi Brendan,
>>
>> On 11/28/18 11:36 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>> Split out a couple of test cases that these features in base.c from the
>>> unitt
On 2/14/19 1:37 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> Migrate tests without any cleanup, or modifying test logic in anyway to
> run under KUnit using the KUnit expectation and assertion API.
>
> Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins
> ---
> drivers/of/Kconfig|1 +
> drivers/of/unittest.c | 1310
Hi Brendan, Rob,
On 11/28/18 11:36 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> This patch set proposes KUnit, a lightweight unit testing and mocking
> framework for the Linux kernel.
>
> Unlike Autotest and kselftest, KUnit is a true unit testing framework;
> it does not require installing the kernel on a test
On 11/28/18 11:36 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> Migrate tests without any cleanup, or modifying test logic in anyway to
> run under KUnit using the KUnit expectation and assertion API.
>
> Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins
> ---
> drivers/of/Kconfig|1 +
> drivers/of/unittest.c | 1405 ++
On 11/28/18 11:36 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> This patch set proposes KUnit, a lightweight unit testing and mocking
> framework for the Linux kernel.
>
> Unlike Autotest and kselftest, KUnit is a true unit testing framework;
> it does not require installing the kernel on a test machine or in a VM
Hi Brendan,
On 11/28/18 11:36 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> Split out a couple of test cases that these features in base.c from the
> unittest.c monolith. The intention is that we will eventually split out
> all test cases and group them together based on what portion of device
> tree they test.
W
On 11/6/18 5:17 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 11:23 AM Shuah Khan wrote:
>>
>> Hi Brendan,
>
>> Framework looks good. I think it would be helpful to include a real test
>
> Great to hear!
>
>> in the patch series to get a feel for how effective it is.
>
> Alright, will do
Hi Geert,
On 03/22/18 07:26, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 2:39 AM, wrote:
>> On Thursday, March 15, 2018 8:37 AM, Arnd Bergmann [mailto:a...@arndb.de]
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The *.dtb and *.dtb.S files get removed by 'make' during the build
>>> process,
>>> and
On 03/06/18 18:30, David Gibson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 01:40:20PM -0800, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 03/06/18 11:51, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>> On 03/06/18 04:30, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
< snip >
>>> And the patched dtc works for a dts file that I was t
On 03/06/18 11:51, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 03/06/18 04:30, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 4:54 AM, David Gibson
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 09:05:24AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Fe
On 03/06/18 04:30, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 4:54 AM, David Gibson
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 09:05:24AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 3:38 AM, Frank Rowand
>>> wrote:
>>
On 02/22/18 14:10, Frank Rowand wrote:
> Hi Laurent, Rob,
>
> Thanks for the prompt spin to address my concerns. There are some small
> technical issues.
>
> I did not read the v3 patch until today. v3 through v6 are still using the
> old overlay apply method which uses an
On 02/23/18 11:56, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
> On Friday, 23 February 2018 21:43:17 EET Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 02/23/18 01:00, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>> On Friday, 23 February 2018 04:38:06 EET Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>> On 02/22/18 14:10, Frank
On 02/23/18 01:25, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
> On Friday, 23 February 2018 05:20:43 EET Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 02/22/18 02:25, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 22 February 2018 08:07:14 EET Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>> On 02/20/18 15:10,
On 02/23/18 01:00, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
> On Friday, 23 February 2018 04:38:06 EET Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 02/22/18 14:10, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>> Hi Laurent, Rob,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the prompt spin to address my concerns. There are
On 02/22/18 05:13, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This patch series addresses a design mistake that dates back from the initial
> DU support. Support for the LVDS encoders, which are IP cores separate from
> the DU, was bundled in the DU driver. Worse, both the DU and LVDS were
> described t
Hi Laurent, Rob,
Thanks for the prompt spin to address my concerns. There are some small
technical issues.
I did not read the v3 patch until today. v3 through v6 are still using the
old overlay apply method which uses an expanded device tree as input.
Rob, I don't see my overlay patches in you
Hi Laurent,
On 02/22/18 02:25, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
> On Thursday, 22 February 2018 08:07:14 EET Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 02/20/18 15:10, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> This patch series addresses a design mistake that
On 02/22/18 14:10, Frank Rowand wrote:
> Hi Laurent, Rob,
>
> Thanks for the prompt spin to address my concerns. There are some small
> technical issues.
>
> I did not read the v3 patch until today. v3 through v6 are still using the
> old overlay apply method which uses an
On 02/20/18 15:10, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This patch series addresses a design mistake that dates back from the initial
> DU support. Support for the LVDS encoders, which are IP cores separate from
> the DU, was bundled in the DU driver. Worse, both the DU and LVDS were
> described t
On 01/15/18 15:46, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 01/15/18 12:29, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>> Hi Frank,
>>
>> On Monday, 15 January 2018 22:12:33 EET Frank Rowand wrote:
>>> On 01/15/18 11:22, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>>> On Monday, 15 January 2018 21:12:44 EET F
On 01/15/18 12:29, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
> On Monday, 15 January 2018 22:12:33 EET Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 01/15/18 11:22, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>> On Monday, 15 January 2018 21:12:44 EET Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>> On 01/15/18 09
On 01/15/18 11:22, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
> On Monday, 15 January 2018 21:12:44 EET Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 01/15/18 09:09, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> +Frank
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 5:14 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>>
On 01/15/18 09:09, Rob Herring wrote:
> +Frank
>
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 5:14 PM, Laurent Pinchart
> wrote:
>> The internal LVDS encoders now have their own DT bindings. Before
>> switching the driver infrastructure to those new bindings, implement
>> backward-compatibility through live DT patc
Hi Jyri,
On 11/13/17 07:40, Jyri Sarha wrote:
> On 11/13/17 07:58, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 20:37:56 + Mark Brown wrote:
>>>
>>> Today's linux-next merge of the devicetree tree got a conflict in:
>>>
>>> drivers/gpu/drm/tilcdc/tilcdc_slave_compat.c
>>>
>>
On 10/19/17 12:04, Alan Tull wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 6:36 PM, wrote:
>
>> static int overlay_notify(struct overlay_changeset *ovcs,
>> enum of_overlay_notify_action action)
>> {
>> @@ -86,8 +109,14 @@ static int overlay_notify(struct overlay_changeset *ovcs,
>>
>>
On 10/17/17 07:38, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 8:17 PM, wrote:
>> From: Frank Rowand
>>
>> This patch is aimed primarily at drivers/of/overlay.c, but those
>> changes also have a small impact in a few other files.
>>
>> overlay.c is d
On 10/16/17 18:17, frowand.l...@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Frank Rowand
>
> The process of applying an overlay consists of:
> - unflatten an overlay FDT (flattened device tree) into an
> EDT (expanded device tree)
> - fixup the phandle values in the overlay EDT to fi
On 10/16/17 18:17, frowand.l...@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Frank Rowand
>
> I have found the device tree overlay code to be difficult to read and
> maintain. This patch series attempts to improve that situation.
>
> The cleanup includes some changes visible to users of overla
On 10/16/17 13:46, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 8:02 PM, wrote:
>> From: Frank Rowand
>>
>> Move more code into of_overlay_apply() so that it does not have
>> to be duplicated by each caller of of_overlay_apply().
>>
>> The test in of_reso
Hi Rob,
On 10/02/17 20:53, frowand.l...@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Frank Rowand
>
> I have found the device tree overlay code to be difficult to read and
> maintain. This patch series attempts to improve that situation.
>
> The cleanup includes some changes visible to users
On 10/10/17 14:06, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 10/10/17 11:40, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 08:29:59PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>> On 10/04/17 08:19, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>>
On 10/10/17 11:40, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 08:29:59PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 10/04/17 08:19, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 10:53 PM, wrote:
>>>> From: Frank Rowand
>>>>
>>>> The process of
On 10/10/17 14:06, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
< snip >
>
> AFAICT, I don't think anything between of_resolve_phandles and
> of_overlay_apply calls in tilcdc depends on the phandles being fixed
> up.
I think you are co
On 10/04/17 08:19, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 10:53 PM, wrote:
>> From: Frank Rowand
>>
>> The process of applying an overlay consists of:
>> - unflatten an overlay FDT (flattened device tree) into an
>> EDT (expanded device tree)
>&
On 02/03/17 19:36, Rob Herring wrote:
> Many drivers have a common pattern of searching the OF graph for either an
> attached panel or bridge and then finding the DRM struct for the panel
> or bridge. Also, most drivers need to handle deferred probing when the
> DRM device is not yet instantiated.
On 11/23/16 10:13, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 11/22/16 21:55, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>> On Tuesday 22 November 2016 11:51 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>> Please note that the compatible property might contain several strings, not
>>> just
>>> a single string.
>>
&g
On 11/22/16 21:55, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 November 2016 11:51 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> Please note that the compatible property might contain several strings, not
>> just
>> a single string.
>
> So I guess the best thing to do is to use
> of_property
On 11/21/16 22:25, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
> On Tuesday 22 November 2016 07:13 AM, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 11/21/16 08:33, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>>> On Monday 31 October 2016 08:15 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>>> +static int da8xx_ddrct
Hi Sekhar,
(And adding Sudeep since he becomes involved in this further
down thread and at that point says he will re-work this
proposed work around in a manner that is incorrect in a
manner that is similar to this proposed work around.)
On 11/21/16 08:33, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> On Monday 31 Octobe
On 10/22/2015 7:44 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:05:11AM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>> But that's moot currently because Greg believes that the time spent
>> probing devices at boot time could be reduced enough so that the order
>> in which devices are probed beco
On 10/21/2015 1:35 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 08:36:23AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 10/21/2015 1:18 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 08:58:19PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>> On 10/20/2015 8:4
On 10/21/2015 2:12 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Frank Rowand
> wrote:
>> On 10/21/2015 9:27 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 08:59:51AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>> On 10/19/2015 5:34 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
&g
On 10/21/2015 9:27 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 08:59:51AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 10/19/2015 5:34 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>
>>> To be clear, I was saying that this series should NOT affect total
>>> boot times much.
>
>> I
On 10/21/2015 9:55 AM, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> On 10/21/2015 06:36 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 10/21/2015 1:18 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 08:58:19PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>> On 10/20/2015 8:46 AM, Russell King -
On 10/19/2015 5:34 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> On 18 October 2015 at 21:53, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 12:37:57PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 08:29:31PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:57:50PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote
On 10/21/2015 1:18 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 08:58:19PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 10/20/2015 8:46 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
< snip >
>>> +
>>> static bool dri
84 matches
Mail list logo
