On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Marcus Lorentzon
wrote:
> On 03/12/2011 04:59 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 5:28 AM, Daniel Vetter ?wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 04:34:22PM -0500, Alex Deucher wrote:
>>>
This doesn't seem that different from the graphics
On 03/12/2011 04:59 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 5:28 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 04:34:22PM -0500, Alex Deucher wrote:
>>
>>> This doesn't seem that different from the graphics chips we support
>>> with kms. I don't think it would require much
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Marcus Lorentzon
wrote:
> On 03/12/2011 04:59 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 5:28 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 04:34:22PM -0500, Alex Deucher wrote:
>>>
This doesn't seem that different from the graphics
On 03/12/2011 04:59 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 5:28 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 04:34:22PM -0500, Alex Deucher wrote:
This doesn't seem that different from the graphics chips we support
with kms. I don't think it would require much work to use K
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 5:28 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 04:34:22PM -0500, Alex Deucher wrote:
>> This doesn't seem that different from the graphics chips we support
>> with kms. ?I don't think it would require much work to use KMS. ?One
>> thing we considered, but never ende
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 5:28 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 04:34:22PM -0500, Alex Deucher wrote:
>> This doesn't seem that different from the graphics chips we support
>> with kms. I don't think it would require much work to use KMS. One
>> thing we considered, but never ende
On 12/17/2010 12:22 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> * When I talk about a bus, I mean 'struct bus_type', which identifies
>>> all devices with a uniform bus interface to their parent device
>>> (think: PCI, USB, I2C). You seem to think of a bus as a specific
>>> instance of that bus type,
On Thursday 16 December 2010 19:26:37 Marcus Lorentzon wrote:
> On 11/26/2010 12:24 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > [note: please configure your email client properly so it keeps
> > proper attribution of text and and does not rewrap the citations
> > incorrectly. Wrap your own text after 70 character
On 12/17/2010 12:22 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
* When I talk about a bus, I mean 'struct bus_type', which identifies
all devices with a uniform bus interface to their parent device
(think: PCI, USB, I2C). You seem to think of a bus as a specific
instance of that bus type, i.e. the devic
On Thursday 16 December 2010 19:26:37 Marcus Lorentzon wrote:
> On 11/26/2010 12:24 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > [note: please configure your email client properly so it keeps
> > proper attribution of text and and does not rewrap the citations
> > incorrectly. Wrap your own text after 70 character
;>> Sent: den 25 november 2010 17:48
>>> To: Marcus LORENTZON
>>> Cc: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org; Jimmy RUBIN; linux-
>>> media at vger.kernel.org; Dan JOHANSSON; Linus WALLEIJ
>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] MCDE: Add build
LORENTZON
Cc: linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org; Jimmy RUBIN; linux-
me...@vger.kernel.org; Dan JOHANSSON; Linus WALLEIJ
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] MCDE: Add build files and bus
On Thursday 25 November 2010, Marcus LORENTZON wrote:
From: Arnd Bergmann [mailto:a...@arndb.de]
On
On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 04:34:22PM -0500, Alex Deucher wrote:
> This doesn't seem that different from the graphics chips we support
> with kms. I don't think it would require much work to use KMS. One
> thing we considered, but never ended up implementing was a generic
> overlay API for KMS. Mos
On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 04:34:22PM -0500, Alex Deucher wrote:
> This doesn't seem that different from the graphics chips we support
> with kms. I don't think it would require much work to use KMS. One
> thing we considered, but never ended up implementing was a generic
> overlay API for KMS. Mos
>
>> > Having the kms/fb/v4l2 drivers on top definitely makes sense, so
>> > these should all be able to be standalone loadable modules.
>> > I do not understand why you have a v4l2 driver at all, or why
>> > you need both fb and kms drivers, but that is probably because
>> > of my ignorance of dis
>> > Sent: den 25 november 2010 17:48
>> > To: Marcus LORENTZON
>> > Cc: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org; Jimmy RUBIN; linux-
>> > media at vger.kernel.org; Dan JOHANSSON; Linus WALLEIJ
>> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] MCDE: Add build file
>> > Sent: den 25 november 2010 17:48
>> > To: Marcus LORENTZON
>> > Cc: linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org; Jimmy RUBIN; linux-
>> > me...@vger.kernel.org; Dan JOHANSSON; Linus WALLEIJ
>> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] MCDE: Add build files and bus
>
>
>> > Having the kms/fb/v4l2 drivers on top definitely makes sense, so
>> > these should all be able to be standalone loadable modules.
>> > I do not understand why you have a v4l2 driver at all, or why
>> > you need both fb and kms drivers, but that is probably because
>> > of my ignorance of dis
On Wednesday 01 December 2010, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> Right, so saying to ARM developers that they can't submit code which
> adds new static device structures is rather problematical then, and
> effectively brings a section of kernel development to a complete
> standstill - it means no s
Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> I feel it would be better to allow the current situation to continue.
I think this misses the point, and is somewhat redundant; I think
everyone knows that it is easiest to never change anything. But
then nothing improves.
> If we start telling people that they
On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 01:53:39PM +0100, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > I feel it would be better to allow the current situation to continue.
>
> I think this misses the point, and is somewhat redundant; I think
> everyone knows that it is easiest to never change anythin
On Wednesday 01 December 2010, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> Right, so saying to ARM developers that they can't submit code which
> adds new static device structures is rather problematical then, and
> effectively brings a section of kernel development to a complete
> standstill - it means no s
On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 01:53:39PM +0100, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > I feel it would be better to allow the current situation to continue.
>
> I think this misses the point, and is somewhat redundant; I think
> everyone knows that it is easiest to never change anythin
Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> I feel it would be better to allow the current situation to continue.
I think this misses the point, and is somewhat redundant; I think
everyone knows that it is easiest to never change anything. But
then nothing improves.
> If we start telling people that they
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:42:15PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > It's a work in progress, but wherever possible, I encourage people to
> > not make 'struct device' static.
>
> Right, so saying to ARM developers that they can't submit code which
> adds new static device structures is r
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 03:05:33PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:05:50PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:48:34AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 06:40:49PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > > There's lots of s
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:05:50PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:48:34AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 06:40:49PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > There's lots of static devices, not only platform devices, in the ARM
> > > tree.
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:48:34AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 06:40:49PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > There's lots of static devices, not only platform devices, in the ARM
> > tree. It's going to be a hell of a lot of work to fix this all up
> > properly.
>
> I
2010/11/26 Arnd Bergmann :
> * When you say that the devices are static, I hope you do not mean
> static in the C language sense. We used to allow devices to be
> declared as "static struct" and registered using
> platform_device_register (or other bus specific functions). This
> is no longer
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 04:21:47PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 November 2010, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > 2010/11/26 Arnd Bergmann :
> >
> > > * When you say that the devices are static, I hope you do not mean
> > > static in the C language sense. We used to allow devices to be
> > >
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 06:40:49PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 04:21:47PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Tuesday 30 November 2010, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > > 2010/11/26 Arnd Bergmann :
> > >
> > > > * When you say that the devices are static, I hope you do
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 03:05:33PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:05:50PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:48:34AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 06:40:49PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > > There's lots of s
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:48:34AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 06:40:49PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > There's lots of static devices, not only platform devices, in the ARM
> > tree. It's going to be a hell of a lot of work to fix this all up
> > properly.
>
> I
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 04:21:47PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 November 2010, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > 2010/11/26 Arnd Bergmann :
> >
> > > * When you say that the devices are static, I hope you do not mean
> > > static in the C language sense. We used to allow devices to be
> > >
On Tuesday 30 November 2010, Linus Walleij wrote:
> 2010/11/26 Arnd Bergmann :
>
> > * When you say that the devices are static, I hope you do not mean
> > static in the C language sense. We used to allow devices to be
> > declared as "static struct" and registered using
> > platform_device_reg
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:42:15PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > It's a work in progress, but wherever possible, I encourage people to
> > not make 'struct device' static.
>
> Right, so saying to ARM developers that they can't submit code which
> adds new static device structures is r
2010/11/26 Arnd Bergmann :
> * When you say that the devices are static, I hope you do not mean
> ?static in the C language sense. We used to allow devices to be
> ?declared as "static struct" and registered using
> ?platform_device_register (or other bus specific functions). This
> ?is no longer
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:05:50PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:48:34AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 06:40:49PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > There's lots of static devices, not only platform devices, in the ARM
> > > tree.
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 06:40:49PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 04:21:47PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Tuesday 30 November 2010, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > > 2010/11/26 Arnd Bergmann :
> > >
> > > > * When you say that the devices are static, I hope you do
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 04:21:47PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 November 2010, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > 2010/11/26 Arnd Bergmann :
> >
> > > * When you say that the devices are static, I hope you do not mean
> > > static in the C language sense. We used to allow devices to be
> > >
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 04:21:47PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 November 2010, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > 2010/11/26 Arnd Bergmann :
> >
> > > * When you say that the devices are static, I hope you do not mean
> > > static in the C language sense. We used to allow devices to be
> > >
On Tuesday 30 November 2010, Linus Walleij wrote:
> 2010/11/26 Arnd Bergmann :
>
> > * When you say that the devices are static, I hope you do not mean
> > static in the C language sense. We used to allow devices to be
> > declared as "static struct" and registered using
> > platform_device_reg
; > Cc: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org; Jimmy RUBIN; linux-
> > media at vger.kernel.org; Dan JOHANSSON; Linus WALLEIJ
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] MCDE: Add build files and bus
> >
> > On Thursday 25 November 2010, Marcus LORENTZON wrote:
> > > From:
ON
> > Cc: linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org; Jimmy RUBIN; linux-
> > me...@vger.kernel.org; Dan JOHANSSON; Linus WALLEIJ
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] MCDE: Add build files and bus
> >
> > On Thursday 25 November 2010, Marcus LORENTZON wrote:
> > > From: Arnd B
44 matches
Mail list logo
