Hi Grant,
On Nov 11, 2013, at 6:04 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 21:46:26 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
> wrote:
>> On 07.11.13, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>>> Hi Sebastian,
>> Hi Pantelis,
>>
>>> FWIW DT has been ported to x86. And is present on arm/powerpc/mips/arc and
>>> p
On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 21:46:26 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
wrote:
> On 07.11.13, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> > Hi Sebastian,
> Hi Pantelis,
>
> > FWIW DT has been ported to x86. And is present on arm/powerpc/mips/arc and
> > possibly
> > others.
>
> Yes, I know. I am the one that did the work
On 07.11.13, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > I am only saying that this "hot-plug a device at a non hot-plugagle bus at
> > runtime" is not limited to DT but this solution is. X86 + ACPI is not
> > the only limitation. ARM is (forced) going to ACPI as well as far I
> > know. And this solution is limited t
Hi Guenter,
On Nov 8, 2013, at 1:00 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 09:46:26PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>> On 07.11.13, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>>> Hi Sebastian,
>> Hi Pantelis,
>>
>>> FWIW DT has been ported to x86. And is present on arm/powerpc/mips/arc and
Hi Sebastian,
On Nov 7, 2013, at 10:46 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 07.11.13, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>> Hi Sebastian,
> Hi Pantelis,
>
>> FWIW DT has been ported to x86. And is present on arm/powerpc/mips/arc and
>> possibly
>> others.
>
> Yes, I know. I am the one that did the
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 09:46:26PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 07.11.13, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> > Hi Sebastian,
> Hi Pantelis,
>
> > FWIW DT has been ported to x86. And is present on arm/powerpc/mips/arc and
> > possibly
> > others.
>
> Yes, I know. I am the one that did the
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 10:06:31PM +0200, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> Hi Sebastian,
>
> On Nov 7, 2013, at 9:25 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>
> > On 06.11.13, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > |…
> > thanks for the explanation.
> >
> >> We use DT overlays to describe the hardware on those boards
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 08:25:58PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 06.11.13, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> |…
> thanks for the explanation.
>
> > We use DT overlays to describe the hardware on those boards and, if
> > necessary,
> > its configuration. For example, if there is a PCIe switch,
On 07.11.13, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> Hi Sebastian,
Hi Pantelis,
> FWIW DT has been ported to x86. And is present on arm/powerpc/mips/arc and
> possibly
> others.
Yes, I know. I am the one that did the work for CE4100, the first one
that boots with DT on x86.
> So what are we talking about ag
Hi Sebastian,
On Nov 7, 2013, at 9:25 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 06.11.13, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> |…
> thanks for the explanation.
>
>> We use DT overlays to describe the hardware on those boards and, if
>> necessary,
>> its configuration. For example, if there is a PCIe switch,
On 06.11.13, Guenter Roeck wrote:
|…
thanks for the explanation.
> We use DT overlays to describe the hardware on those boards and, if necessary,
> its configuration. For example, if there is a PCIe switch, the overlay would
> describe its memory and bus number configuration.
So have your "fix" c
Hi!
On 06/11/13 20:08, ext Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>>> The following patchset introduces Device Tree overlays, a method
>>> of dynamically altering the kernel's live Device Tree, along with
>>> a generic interface to use it in a board agnostic manner.
>>
>> In case this has been discussed and I m
Hi Guenter,
On Nov 6, 2013, at 11:17 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 09:38:21PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>> On 06.11.13, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> At least that is our use case. u-boot doesn't know which cards are going to
>>> be
>>> inserted at runtime. Even PCI
Hi Sebastian,
On Nov 6, 2013, at 10:41 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 06.11.13, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>>> It has been discussed.
>>>
>>> We are doing it because
>
> Please don't get me wrong. I am not against this, I am just curious why
> this needs to be done at runtime a
Hi Sebestian,
On Nov 6, 2013, at 10:31 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 06.11.13, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>> Hi Sebastian,
> Hi Pantelis,
>
>> It has been discussed.
>>
>> We are doing it because
>>
>> a) We tried to do it in u-boot and it has been a complete disaster.
>> Regular use
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 09:38:21PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 06.11.13, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > At least that is our use case. u-boot doesn't know which cards are going to
> > be
> > inserted at runtime. Even PCIe hotplug itself is insufficient, as the PCIe
> > configuration dif
On 06.11.13, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > It has been discussed.
> >
> > We are doing it because
Please don't get me wrong. I am not against this, I am just curious why
this needs to be done at runtime and bootloader time is not an option.
Sebastian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send
On 06.11.13, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> At least that is our use case. u-boot doesn't know which cards are going to be
> inserted at runtime. Even PCIe hotplug itself is insufficient, as the PCIe
> configuration differs per card, and the cards support a variety of i2c devices
> as well as other card sp
On 06.11.13, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> Hi Sebastian,
Hi Pantelis,
> It has been discussed.
>
> We are doing it because
>
> a) We tried to do it in u-boot and it has been a complete disaster.
> Regular users just can't handle bootloader updates.
How so? The "additional" dtb piece was deleted by
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 08:01:52PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 05.11.13, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> > The following patchset introduces Device Tree overlays, a method
> > of dynamically altering the kernel's live Device Tree, along with
> > a generic interface to use it in a board
Hi Sebastian,
On Nov 6, 2013, at 9:01 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 05.11.13, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>> The following patchset introduces Device Tree overlays, a method
>> of dynamically altering the kernel's live Device Tree, along with
>> a generic interface to use it in a board a
On 05.11.13, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> The following patchset introduces Device Tree overlays, a method
> of dynamically altering the kernel's live Device Tree, along with
> a generic interface to use it in a board agnostic manner.
In case this has been discussed and I missed it: Why are we doing
Hi Pantelis,
On 05/11/13 19:41, ext Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> The following patchset introduces Device Tree overlays, a method
> of dynamically altering the kernel's live Device Tree, along with
> a generic interface to use it in a board agnostic manner.
I'm glad to see it again! Will test the w
Hi Pantelis,
On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 11:06 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 08:41:35PM +0200, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> > The following patchset introduces Device Tree overlays, a method
> > of dynamically altering the kernel's live Device Tree, along with
> > a generic interfa
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 08:41:35PM +0200, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> The following patchset introduces Device Tree overlays, a method
> of dynamically altering the kernel's live Device Tree, along with
> a generic interface to use it in a board agnostic manner.
>
Hi Pantelis,
great to see this go
The following patchset introduces Device Tree overlays, a method
of dynamically altering the kernel's live Device Tree, along with
a generic interface to use it in a board agnostic manner.
It is against mainline as of today, Nov 5 2013:
be408cd3e1fef73e9408b196a79b9934697fe3b1
Mer
26 matches
Mail list logo
