Hey Bjorn-
On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 11:11:36PM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > On 08/27/2013 11:01 AM, Josh Cartwright wrote:
> > ...
> > cell 0 - address type (0: master, 1: unique ID, 2: group ID, ...)
>
> I think it would make sense to
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 08/27/2013 11:01 AM, Josh Cartwright wrote:
> ...
> cell 0 - address type (0: master, 1: unique ID, 2: group ID, ...)
I think it would make sense to have the master id as a property of the
bus, as you could consider this to indicate diff
On 08/28/2013 12:00 PM, Josh Cartwright wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 03:55:19PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 08/27/2013 11:01 AM, Josh Cartwright wrote:
>> ...
>>> If we want to ensure for the generic bindings that we are fulling
>>> characterizing/describing the SPMI bus, then we'll addi
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 03:55:19PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 08/27/2013 11:01 AM, Josh Cartwright wrote:
> ...
> > If we want to ensure for the generic bindings that we are fulling
> > characterizing/describing the SPMI bus, then we'll additionally need to
> > tackle an additional identifie
On 08/27/2013 11:01 AM, Josh Cartwright wrote:
...
> If we want to ensure for the generic bindings that we are fulling
> characterizing/describing the SPMI bus, then we'll additionally need to
> tackle an additional identified assumption:
>
> 4. One master per SPMI bus. (The SPMI spec allows fo
Hey Stephen-
Thanks for the comments.
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 03:58:36PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 08/22/2013 01:59 PM, Josh Cartwright wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Josh Cartwright
> > ---
> > I'm introducing this as an RFC, because there are set of assumptions
> > made in this binding spec
On 08/22/2013 01:59 PM, Josh Cartwright wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Josh Cartwright
> ---
> I'm introducing this as an RFC, because there are set of assumptions
> made in this binding spec, that currently hold true for the supported
> controller/addressing scheme for the Snapdragon 800 series, but don
Signed-off-by: Josh Cartwright
---
I'm introducing this as an RFC, because there are set of assumptions
made in this binding spec, that currently hold true for the supported
controller/addressing scheme for the Snapdragon 800 series, but don't
necessarily hold true for SPMI in general.
1. No us
8 matches
Mail list logo