On 10/03/14 07:53, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 08/03/14 14:25, Grant Likely wrote:
>
>> Sure. If endpoints are logical, then only create the ones actually
>> hooked up. No problem there. But nor do I see any issue with having
>> empty connections if the board author things it makes sense to have th
On 08/03/14 14:25, Grant Likely wrote:
> Sure. If endpoints are logical, then only create the ones actually
> hooked up. No problem there. But nor do I see any issue with having
> empty connections if the board author things it makes sense to have them
> in the dtsi.
I don't think they are usuall
Hi Grant,
On Saturday 08 March 2014 12:25:32 Grant Likely wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Mar 2014 11:35:38 +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> > On 07/03/14 20:11, Grant Likely wrote:
> > >>> Any board not using that port can just leave the endpoint
> > >>> disconnected.
> > >>
> > >> Hmm I see. I'm against that.
On Sat, 8 Mar 2014 11:35:38 +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 07/03/14 20:11, Grant Likely wrote:
>
> >>> Any board not using that port can just leave the endpoint disconnected.
> >>
> >> Hmm I see. I'm against that.
> >>
> >> I think the SoC dtsi should not contain endpoint node, or even port no
On 07/03/14 20:11, Grant Likely wrote:
>>> Any board not using that port can just leave the endpoint disconnected.
>>
>> Hmm I see. I'm against that.
>>
>> I think the SoC dtsi should not contain endpoint node, or even port node
>> (at least usually). It doesn't know how many endpoints, if any, a
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 16:50:52 +0200, Tomi Valkeinen
wrote:
> On 26/02/14 16:57, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> > Hi Tomi,
> >
> > Am Mittwoch, den 26.02.2014, 15:14 +0200 schrieb Tomi Valkeinen:
> >> On 25/02/14 16:58, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> >>
> >>> +Optional endpoint properties
> >>> +-
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 15:14:17 +0200, Tomi Valkeinen
wrote:
> On 25/02/14 16:58, Philipp Zabel wrote:
>
> > +Optional endpoint properties
> > +
> > +
> > +- remote-endpoint: phandle to an 'endpoint' subnode of a remote device
> > node.
>
> Why is that optional? What u
On 27/02/14 12:52, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> This is a bit verbose, and if your output port is on an encoder device
> with multiple inputs, the correct port number would become a bit
> unintuitive. For example, we'd have to use port@4 as the output encoder
> units that have a 4-port input multiplexer
Hi Tomi,
Am Donnerstag, den 27.02.2014, 10:08 +0200 schrieb Tomi Valkeinen:
> On 26/02/14 17:47, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> > Please let's not make it mandatory for a port node to contain an
> > endpoint. For any device with multiple ports we can't use the simplified
> > form above, and only adding th
On 26/02/14 17:47, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> Ok, that looks compact enough. I still don't see the need to change make
> the remote-endpoint property required to achieve this, though. On the
> other hand, I wouldn't object to making it mandatory either.
Sure, having remote-endpoint as required doesn'
Am Mittwoch, den 26.02.2014, 16:50 +0200 schrieb Tomi Valkeinen:
> On 26/02/14 16:57, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> > Hi Tomi,
> >
> > Am Mittwoch, den 26.02.2014, 15:14 +0200 schrieb Tomi Valkeinen:
> >> On 25/02/14 16:58, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> >>
> >>> +Optional endpoint properties
> >>> +
On 26/02/14 16:57, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> Hi Tomi,
>
> Am Mittwoch, den 26.02.2014, 15:14 +0200 schrieb Tomi Valkeinen:
>> On 25/02/14 16:58, Philipp Zabel wrote:
>>
>>> +Optional endpoint properties
>>> +
>>> +
>>> +- remote-endpoint: phandle to an 'endpoint' subnode o
Hi Tomi,
Am Mittwoch, den 26.02.2014, 15:14 +0200 schrieb Tomi Valkeinen:
> On 25/02/14 16:58, Philipp Zabel wrote:
>
> > +Optional endpoint properties
> > +
> > +
> > +- remote-endpoint: phandle to an 'endpoint' subnode of a remote device
> > node.
>
> Why is that o
On 25/02/14 16:58, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> +Optional endpoint properties
> +
> +
> +- remote-endpoint: phandle to an 'endpoint' subnode of a remote device node.
Why is that optional? What use is an endpoint, if it's not connected to
something?
Also, if this is being wo
14 matches
Mail list logo
