Hello Jhon,
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 7:44 AM, John Syn wrote:
>
> On 5/13/14, 8:39 PM, "Pantelis Antoniou"
> wrote:
>
>>Hi John,
>>
>>On May 13, 2014, at 1:24 PM, John Syn wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 5/13/14, 10:51 AM, "Javier Martinez Canillas"
>>> wrote:
>>>
Hello Pantelis,
On Tue, May
On 5/13/14, 8:39 PM, "Pantelis Antoniou"
wrote:
>Hi John,
>
>On May 13, 2014, at 1:24 PM, John Syn wrote:
>
>>
>> On 5/13/14, 10:51 AM, "Javier Martinez Canillas"
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Pantelis,
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Pantelis Antoniou
>>> wrote:
Hi Javier,
>>>
Hi John,
On May 13, 2014, at 1:24 PM, John Syn wrote:
>
> On 5/13/14, 10:51 AM, "Javier Martinez Canillas"
> wrote:
>
>> Hello Pantelis,
>>
>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Pantelis Antoniou
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Javier,
>>>
>>> On May 13, 2014, at 7:39 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>>>
Hi Javier,
On May 13, 2014, at 10:51 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> Hello Pantelis,
>
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Pantelis Antoniou
> wrote:
>> Hi Javier,
>>
>> On May 13, 2014, at 7:39 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Matt Porter wrot
On 5/13/14, 10:51 AM, "Javier Martinez Canillas"
wrote:
>Hello Pantelis,
>
>On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Pantelis Antoniou
> wrote:
>> Hi Javier,
>>
>> On May 13, 2014, at 7:39 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Matt Porter
>>>wrote:
On Tue, May
Hello Pantelis,
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Pantelis Antoniou
wrote:
> Hi Javier,
>
> On May 13, 2014, at 7:39 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Matt Porter wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 04:06:02PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
On T
Hi Javier,
On May 13, 2014, at 7:39 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Matt Porter wrote:
>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 04:06:02PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
On 05/12/2014 04:57 PM, Robert Nel
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Matt Porter wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 04:06:02PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>> > On 05/12/2014 04:57 PM, Robert Nelson wrote:
>> Either case if fine with me. As who knows when the dtc "ov
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 04:06:02PM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On 05/12/2014 04:57 PM, Robert Nelson wrote:
> Either case if fine with me. As who knows when the dtc "overlay" will
> every truly make it mainline, as the ca
On 05/13/2014 10:06 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> Agreed. I think that until the device tree overlay and the cape
> manager find their way into mainline we should treat capes as if they
> were expansion boards attached to a Computer-on-Module. That is, a
> static based board which its own
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On 05/12/2014 04:57 PM, Robert Nelson wrote:
Either case if fine with me. As who knows when the dtc "overlay" will
every truly make it mainline, as the capemgr was the only real kernel
user of the i2c/at24 eeprom information.
>>>
>
On 05/12/2014 04:57 PM, Robert Nelson wrote:
>>> Either case if fine with me. As who knows when the dtc "overlay" will
>>> every truly make it mainline, as the capemgr was the only real kernel
>>> user of the i2c/at24 eeprom information.
>>
>> Sounds like we should keep it disabled though so u-boo
* Robert Nelson [140512 13:58]:
> >> Either case if fine with me. As who knows when the dtc "overlay" will
> >> every truly make it mainline, as the capemgr was the only real kernel
> >> user of the i2c/at24 eeprom information.
> >
> > Sounds like we should keep it disabled though so u-boot can b
>> Either case if fine with me. As who knows when the dtc "overlay" will
>> every truly make it mainline, as the capemgr was the only real kernel
>> user of the i2c/at24 eeprom information.
>
> Sounds like we should keep it disabled though so u-boot can be used
> to toggle it while waiting for the
* Robert Nelson [140512 13:27]:
> >> >
> >> > If these pins are not used for i2c2 on some capes, this device
> >> > should be set to status = "disabled" state by default. Then
> >> > u-boot could re-enable it on the boards that have i2c2 in use.
> >>
> >> To-date, this is the i2c bus that all cape
>> >
>> > If these pins are not used for i2c2 on some capes, this device
>> > should be set to status = "disabled" state by default. Then
>> > u-boot could re-enable it on the boards that have i2c2 in use.
>>
>> To-date, this is the i2c bus that all capes have placed an at24 eeprom
>> for cape iden
* Robert Nelson [140512 13:00]:
> >>
> >> + i2c2_pins: pinmux_i2c2_pins {
> >> + pinctrl-single,pins = <
> >> + 0x178 (PIN_INPUT_PULLUP | MUX_MODE3)/*
> >> uart1_ctsn.i2c2_sda */
> >> + 0x17c (PIN_INPUT_PULLUP | MUX_MODE3)/*
> >> ua
>>
>> + i2c2_pins: pinmux_i2c2_pins {
>> + pinctrl-single,pins = <
>> + 0x178 (PIN_INPUT_PULLUP | MUX_MODE3)/*
>> uart1_ctsn.i2c2_sda */
>> + 0x17c (PIN_INPUT_PULLUP | MUX_MODE3)/*
>> uart1_rtsn.i2c2_scl */
>> + >;
>> +
* Matt Ranostay [140509 18:43]:
> Add missing i2c2 bus define to access various cape and
> prototype/breakout board devices.
>
> Signed-off-by: Matt Ranostay
> ---
> arch/arm/boot/dts/am335x-bone-common.dtsi | 16
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/bo
Add missing i2c2 bus define to access various cape and
prototype/breakout board devices.
Signed-off-by: Matt Ranostay
---
arch/arm/boot/dts/am335x-bone-common.dtsi | 16
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/am335x-bone-common.dtsi
b/arch/arm/boot/dts
20 matches
Mail list logo
