On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 7:25 PM, David Cohen
wrote:
> In my case [1] I need 2 "virtual devices" (and more in future) to be
> part of an USB OTG port control. I call it virtual because they are too
> simple components connected to no bus and controlled by GPIOs:
> - a fixed regulator controlled by
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 10:34:45AM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:34 AM, David Cohen
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >> If we decide to go ahead with the solution proposed by this patch for
> >> practical reasons (which are good reasons indeed), I still have one
> >> problem wi
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:34 AM, David Cohen
wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> If we decide to go ahead with the solution proposed by this patch for
>> practical reasons (which are good reasons indeed), I still have one
>> problem with its current form.
>>
>> As the discussion highlighted, this is an ACPI problem
Hi,
> If we decide to go ahead with the solution proposed by this patch for
> practical reasons (which are good reasons indeed), I still have one
> problem with its current form.
>
> As the discussion highlighted, this is an ACPI problem, so I'd very
> much like it to be confined to the ACPI GPIO
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 04:10:04PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 06:32:46 PM Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Heikki Krogerus
> > wrote:
> > > Hi guys,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 05:14:22PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 06:44:34PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Heikki Krogerus
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 10:51:27AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Friday, January 30, 2015
On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 06:32:46 PM Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Heikki Krogerus
> wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 05:14:22PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Thursday, January 22, 2015 11:57:55 AM Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> >> > If w
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Heikki Krogerus
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 10:51:27AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki
>> wrote:
>> > On Friday, January 30, 2015 03:48:30 PM Linus Walleij wrote:
>>
>> >> So you could detect one by making a
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Heikki Krogerus
wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 05:14:22PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 22, 2015 11:57:55 AM Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>> > If we decide to go ahead with the solution proposed by this patch for
>> > practical
On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 10:51:27AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, January 30, 2015 03:48:30 PM Linus Walleij wrote:
>
> >> So you could detect one by making a checksum of the binary or something.
> >>
> >> And then you'd know
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, January 30, 2015 03:48:30 PM Linus Walleij wrote:
>> So you could detect one by making a checksum of the binary or something.
>>
>> And then you'd know that the table with this checksum needs patching?
>
> At a single table le
On Friday, January 30, 2015 03:48:30 PM Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 22, 2015 09:17:38 AM Linus Walleij wrote:
>
> >> If the kernel anyway has to supply some kind of workaround for
> >> the issue, it is more a question o
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, January 22, 2015 09:17:38 AM Linus Walleij wrote:
>> If the kernel anyway has to supply some kind of workaround for
>> the issue, it is more a question of where to place it. Whether it does
>> so by patching the ACPI tables
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 04:14:13PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > That actually makes me think that we could then drop the lookup tables
> > completely and use device properties instead with the help of "generic
> > property" (attached):
>
> Which reminds me that I've lost track of this one.
On Friday, January 23, 2015 01:21:22 PM Heikki Krogerus wrote:
>
> --Nq2Wo0NMKNjxTN9z
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> Hi guys,
>
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 05:14:22PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday
Hi guys,
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 05:14:22PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, January 22, 2015 11:57:55 AM Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> > If we decide to go ahead with the solution proposed by this patch for
> > practical reasons (which are good reasons indeed), I still have one
> > pro
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 11:57:55 AM Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:25 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 01:16:06 PM Linus Walleij wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 6:59 AM, Alexandre Courbot
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I am not really fond of
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 09:17:38 AM Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki
> wrote:
>
> > Yes, it can (in principle). In fact, we have a plan to refine it, but it is
> > going to take some time. Once we've done that, we'll see how painful it is
> > to
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Yes, it can (in principle). In fact, we have a plan to refine it, but it is
> going to take some time. Once we've done that, we'll see how painful it is to
> "patch" ACPI tables this way in practice.
>
> Also there is an ecosystem pro
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:25 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 01:16:06 PM Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 6:59 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>>
>> > I am not really fond of this idea since it adds complexity to the
>> > (already too complex) GPIO lookup,
On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 01:16:06 PM Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 6:59 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>
> > I am not really fond of this idea since it adds complexity to the
> > (already too complex) GPIO lookup, and only solves to a local level
> > (GPIO) what is a more globa
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 6:59 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> I am not really fond of this idea since it adds complexity to the
> (already too complex) GPIO lookup, and only solves to a local level
> (GPIO) what is a more global problem (bad ACPI tables that can affect
> any subsystem).
(...)
> it
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 02:59:54PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> I am not really fond of this idea since it adds complexity to the
> (already too complex) GPIO lookup, and only solves to a local level
> (GPIO) what is a more global problem (bad ACPI tables that can affect
> any subsystem).
>
>
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 9:58 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Heikki Krogerus
> wrote:
>
>> This makes it possible to assign GPIOs at runtime. The
>> motivation for it is because of need to forward GPIOs from
>> one device to an other. That feature may be useful for
>>
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:28:03AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 08:32:12 AM Darren Hart wrote:
> >
> > On 1/14/15 4:58 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Heikki Krogerus
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> This makes it possible to assign GP
On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 08:32:12 AM Darren Hart wrote:
>
> On 1/14/15 4:58 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Heikki Krogerus
> > wrote:
> >
> >> This makes it possible to assign GPIOs at runtime. The
> >> motivation for it is because of need to forward GPIOs fr
On Thursday, January 08, 2015 10:25:10 AM Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 10:23:18AM +0200, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> > This makes it possible to assign GPIOs at runtime. The
> > motivation for it is because of need to forward GPIOs from
> > one device to an other. That feature may
On 1/14/15 4:58 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Heikki Krogerus
> wrote:
>
>> This makes it possible to assign GPIOs at runtime. The
>> motivation for it is because of need to forward GPIOs from
>> one device to an other. That feature may be useful for
>> example wit
Ugh, Samuel actually Cc'd this time...
On 1/14/15 4:58 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Heikki Krogerus
> wrote:
>
>> This makes it possible to assign GPIOs at runtime. The
>> motivation for it is because of need to forward GPIOs from
>> one device to an other. That fe
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Heikki Krogerus
wrote:
> This makes it possible to assign GPIOs at runtime. The
> motivation for it is because of need to forward GPIOs from
> one device to an other. That feature may be useful for
> example with some mfd devices, but initially it is needed
> beca
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 10:23:18AM +0200, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> This makes it possible to assign GPIOs at runtime. The
> motivation for it is because of need to forward GPIOs from
> one device to an other. That feature may be useful for
> example with some mfd devices, but initially it is needed
31 matches
Mail list logo
