On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:49:19AM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
>> The original way we determined the gpu version was based on downstream
>> bindings from android kernel. A cleaner way is to get the version from
>> the compatible string.
>>
>> Note
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:49:19AM -0500, Rob Clark wrote:
> The original way we determined the gpu version was based on downstream
> bindings from android kernel. A cleaner way is to get the version from
> the compatible string.
>
> Note that no upstream dtb uses these bindings. But the code st
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
> Rob Clark writes:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 1:09 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
>>> Rob Clark writes:
>>>
The original way we determined the gpu version was based on downstream
bindings from android kernel. A cleaner way is to get the
Rob Clark writes:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 1:09 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
>> Rob Clark writes:
>>
>>> The original way we determined the gpu version was based on downstream
>>> bindings from android kernel. A cleaner way is to get the version from
>>> the compatible string.
>>>
>>> Note that no
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 1:09 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
> Rob Clark writes:
>
>> The original way we determined the gpu version was based on downstream
>> bindings from android kernel. A cleaner way is to get the version from
>> the compatible string.
>>
>> Note that no upstream dtb uses these bindi
Rob Clark writes:
> The original way we determined the gpu version was based on downstream
> bindings from android kernel. A cleaner way is to get the version from
> the compatible string.
>
> Note that no upstream dtb uses these bindings. But the code still
> supports falling back to the legac
