On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 03:46:23PM +0200, Matthijs van Duin wrote:
> On 12 September 2016 at 15:35, Tom Rini wrote:
> > What do you mean by "you can't put it to good use" ? Is that the case
> > of stuff that's say exposed via a header and could be used but isn't (ie
> > the cape/hat/chip/etc case
On 12 September 2016 at 15:35, Tom Rini wrote:
> What do you mean by "you can't put it to good use" ? Is that the case
> of stuff that's say exposed via a header and could be used but isn't (ie
> the cape/hat/chip/etc case) or the IP block is still OK but just not
> exposed at all?
>
> What we're
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 03:11:17AM +0200, Matthijs van Duin wrote:
[snip]
> On 8 September 2016 at 16:20, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> > Minor point here
>
> It's not minor, it's quite crucial.
>
> > maintaining dts per paper spin is just too impossible to maintain
>
> Even if the per-spin dtsi jus
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 03:11:17AM +0200, Matthijs van Duin wrote:
> On 8 September 2016 at 15:38, Rob Herring wrote:
> > Yes, in theory a device can go from disabled to okay, but that's
> > generally never been supported. Linux takes the simple approach of
> > "disabled" means ignore it. I think
On 8 September 2016 at 15:38, Rob Herring wrote:
> Yes, in theory a device can go from disabled to okay, but that's
> generally never been supported. Linux takes the simple approach of
> "disabled" means ignore it. I think we'll see that change with
> overlays.
No need for future tense there, ove
On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 09:43:03PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
> > On 09/08/16 06:38, Rob Herring wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> >>> * Frank Rowand [160831 13:51]:
[snip]
> Why not just create a new pro
On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 09/08/16 06:38, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>>> * Frank Rowand [160831 13:51]:
On 08/29/16 15:35, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> if (of_device_is_incomplete(pdev->dev.of_node, status)) {
* Frank Rowand [160908 12:18]:
> > On 09/08/16 08:58, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> >> Just to consider other ways of doing it, we could use the compatible
> >> flag to tag devices that need to be just idled on probe, but that does
> >> not seem like generic solution to me.
> >
> > Yuck. Again overload
On 09/08/16 12:09, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 09/08/16 08:58, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>> * Rob Herring [160908 06:38]:
>>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Frank Rowand [160831 13:51]:
> I am still opposed to using the status property for this purpose.
>
> The
On 09/08/16 08:58, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Rob Herring [160908 06:38]:
>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>>> * Frank Rowand [160831 13:51]:
I am still opposed to using the status property for this purpose.
The status property is intended to report an operat
On 09/08/16 06:38, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>> * Frank Rowand [160831 13:51]:
>>> On 08/29/16 15:35, Tony Lindgren wrote:
if (of_device_is_incomplete(pdev->dev.of_node, status)) {
if (!strcmp("hw-incomplete-pins", status)
* Rob Herring [160908 06:38]:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > * Frank Rowand [160831 13:51]:
> >> I am still opposed to using the status property for this purpose.
> >>
> >> The status property is intended to report an operational problem with
> >> a device or a devic
On 09/08/2016 08:38 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
[...]
It is unfortunate that Linux has adopted the practice of overloading status
to determine whether a piece of hardware exists or does not exist. This
is extremely useful for the way we structu
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Frank Rowand [160831 13:51]:
>> On 08/29/16 15:35, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>> > if (of_device_is_incomplete(pdev->dev.of_node, status)) {
>> > if (!strcmp("hw-incomplete-pins", status)) {
>> > dev_info(&pde
* Frank Rowand [160831 13:51]:
> On 08/29/16 15:35, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > if (of_device_is_incomplete(pdev->dev.of_node, status)) {
> > if (!strcmp("hw-incomplete-pins", status)) {
> > dev_info(&pdev->dev,
> > "Unusable hardware:
Hi Tony,
On 08/29/16 15:35, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> We have devices that are in incomplete state, but still need to be
> probed to allow properly idling them for PM. Some examples are
> devices that are not pinned out on certain packages, or otherwise
> unusable on some SoCs.
>
> Setting status =
* Tony Lindgren [160829 17:40]:
> * Rob Herring [160829 17:24]:
> > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > > if (!strcmp("hw-incomplete-pins", status)) {
> > > dev_info(&pdev->dev,
> > > "Unusable hardwar
* Rob Herring [160829 17:24]:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > It seems we can use the ePAPR 1.1 status fail-sss to do this.
> > Quoting "Table 2-4 Values for status property" we have "fail-sss":
> >
> > "Indicates that the device is not operational. A serious error was
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> We have devices that are in incomplete state, but still need to be
> probed to allow properly idling them for PM. Some examples are
> devices that are not pinned out on certain packages, or otherwise
> unusable on some SoCs.
>
> Setting statu
19 matches
Mail list logo
