On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 5:31 AM, MobinNet wrote:
> luke.leighton,
yes, automated service that i was subscribed to without my
authorisation or permission: what can i do you for?
> This email concerns your recent ticket: Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner
> SoC support upstrea
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 11:09:59PM +0100, luke.leighton wrote:
>> this is all a rather round-about way to say that for those people who
>> heard and are thinking of heeding russell's call to "be silent and to
>> ignore me"
>
> Okay
On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 11:09:59PM +0100, luke.leighton wrote:
> this is all a rather round-about way to say that for those people who
> heard and are thinking of heeding russell's call to "be silent and to
> ignore me"
Okay, so you've just misrepresented me in the above comment. I never
said any
ok, so the deadline's almost up but the discussions of the past two or
so days have basically i think everything that needs to be said, and
i'm extremely grateful to everyone who's contributed, privately and
publicly, especially on such short notice. i've passed it over to my
associates who will t
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> Now that the discussion went off from "you stupid kernel developers
*lol*. i get that summary ["you said people were stupid!!!"] a lot.
i don't quite understand where it comes from, otherwise i would stop
doing it :)
> adopted DeviceTree wi
Luke,
On Friday 07 of June 2013 22:29:34 luke.leighton wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Thomas Petazzoni
>
> wrote:
> > Maxime will reply to this in more details, but I believe the status
is:
> > * Interrupt controller is working.
> > * Clock drivers are working.
> > * Pinctrl is wor
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Dennis Lan (dlan)
wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, June 8, 2013, luke.leighton wrote:
>>
>> right - too many people contributed to this, input from jon smirl,
>> wookie, maxime, tomasz, henrik, i've made a start here and will
>> continue editing: this is notes for me to p
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:08 PM, Maxime Ripard
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 07:26:49PM +0100, luke.leighton wrote:
>> maxime: we need to talk :)
>>
>> please tell me in 4 or 5 sentences what you've managed to do so far,
>> expanding a little on what thomas says below, more specifically what
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 07:26:49PM +0100, luke.leighton wrote:
> maxime: we need to talk :)
>
> please tell me in 4 or 5 sentences what you've managed to do so far,
> expanding a little on what thomas says below, more specifically what
> it achieves and/or allows rather than technically what it
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 08:18:14PM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
>> wrote:
>> > Luke Leighton on the other hand is demanding that we
>>
>> no demands have be
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 08:02:03PM +0100, luke.leighton wrote:
>> well, tough. get me up to speed, *fast*.
>
> No, not unless you're willing to *pay* someone to spend time teaching you,
there's not enough time. 2 days left.
>
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Thomas Petazzoni
wrote:
> Maxime will reply to this in more details, but I believe the status is:
>
> * Interrupt controller is working.
> * Clock drivers are working.
> * Pinctrl is working.
> * GPIO is working.
> * Timer is working.
> * UART is working
> *
right - too many people contributed to this, input from jon smirl,
wookie, maxime, tomasz, henrik, i've made a start here and will
continue editing: this is notes for me to put forward an agenda for
discussion:
http://hands.com/~lkcl/allwinner_linux_proposal.txt
i'm setting a rule that each secti
Confused yes - innocent mistake - 50% yes.
I see now the posts are cc'd from arm-netbook mailing lists to many
other mailing lists with different standards for noise.
Apologies for not seeing that.
arm-netbook list 'belongs' to luke, but generally the noise level
is very low here and its aim is
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 08:18:14PM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> wrote:
> > Luke Leighton on the other hand is demanding that we
>
> no demands have been made, russell: i've informed you of an immovable
> deadline which wi
+++ Maxime Ripard [2013-06-06 19:28 +0200]:
> Hi everyone,
>
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 09:00:00AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > Listen, Allwinner isn't working in a vacuum, believe it or not. I've
> > talked to them, so has Arnd and other people working on ARM, including
> > Maxime Ripard, who
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 08:04:26PM +0100, luke.leighton wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > By demanding
>
> a-a-ah, no demands made.
" well, tough. get me up to speed, *fast*. please stop wasting time
like this: get me up to speed."
That is a demand. Stop tro
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 08:02:03PM +0100, luke.leighton wrote:
> well, tough. get me up to speed, *fast*.
No, not unless you're willing to *pay* someone to spend time teaching you,
because you are asking to be *taught* about the current situation, so
you're asking someone to do some _work_ _for_
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 08:18:14PM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> wrote:
> > Luke Leighton on the other hand is demanding that we
>
> no demands have been made, russell: i've informed you of an immovable
> deadline which wi
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> Luke Leighton on the other hand is demanding that we
no demands have been made, russell: i've informed you of an immovable
deadline which will pass beyond which the opportunity being presented
is lost.
> (Linux kernel
> developer
On Friday 07 of June 2013 20:02:03 luke.leighton wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Tomasz Figa
wrote:
> >Seeing from your posts you don't have any knowledge on how Linux kernel
> >
> > development works
>
> check back to 2004.
$ git log --oneline --author="Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton"
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Thomas Petazzoni
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, 7 Jun 2013 19:26:49 +0100, luke.leighton wrote:
>
>> > Have you noticed that it is already the case in mainline?
>>
>> i knew there was a little bit, but not the extent of the commits.
>
> Then you could probably use a b
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Wookey wrote:
> OK, this sounds good. Could you say who the allwinner engineers are?
[cross-over: i asked him if he'd be happy to let me know privately,
so i have at least some context when speaking to the Directors]
> I
> guess it's quite a large organisation, s
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> Luke,
>
> I want only one thing from you at this time. See below.
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:45 AM, luke.leighton
> wrote:
>> but the Directors of Allwinner aren't been kept in the loop,
>> here: that's my job, to get them up-to-
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>Seeing from your posts you don't have any knowledge on how Linux kernel
> development works
check back to 2004.
> and even on how Allwinner's cooperation with our
> community looks (and seem to be completely closed to our effort of showing
>
Hello,
On Fri, 7 Jun 2013 19:26:49 +0100, luke.leighton wrote:
> > Have you noticed that it is already the case in mainline?
>
> i knew there was a little bit, but not the extent of the commits.
Then you could probably use a bit of your time to read the kernel
commit logs rather than writing h
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 06 June 2013, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>> So yes, Allwinner has an evil vendor tree (c), with a solution similar yet
>> inferior (because not generic enough) to the device tree, but they show
>> interest on going down the mainline road
Luke,
I want only one thing from you at this time. See below.
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:45 AM, luke.leighton wrote:
> but the Directors of Allwinner aren't been kept in the loop,
> here: that's my job, to get them up-to-speed.
The one job I would love for you to do instead of all this tr
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Maxime Ripard
wrote:
> I should also add that Allwinner not only talked to us already,
oo! great! can you please [privately, not publicly] let me know who
that is, so i can let the Directors know, so that they can follow up?
> but also
> expressed interest in
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 8:13 AM, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 7:54 PM, luke.leighton
>> wrote:
>>> augh. ok. solutions. what are the solutions here?
>>
>> Luke if you really want to fix this a good solution is to
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 02:49:28PM +, joem wrote:
> > > SoC vendors are free to join the discussion, and many SoC vendors are part
> > > of the kernel community, so calling this unilateral is plain wrong.
> >
> > you're free to believe that, vladimir. i've explained why that
> > hasn't happe
thomas i _very_ briefly spotted this when i was extremely busy
yesterday, and i'm grateful to the 2 or 3 people who've given me the
keywords and/or links to catch up.
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Thomas Petazzoni
wrote:
> Dear Tomasz Figa,
>
> On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 02:01:14 +0200, Tomasz Figa w
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Alexandre Belloni
wrote:
> On 07/06/2013 10:06, luke.leighton wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Vladimir Pantelic wrote:
>>> luke.leighton wrote:
3 days remaining on the clock.
>>>
>>> what catastrophic thing will happen when the time runs out?
>> n
On 06/07/2013 02:02 AM, luke.leighton wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> wrote:
>
>> If companies are going to go off and invent the square wheel, and that
>> makes *them* suffer the loss of being able to merge back into the
>> mainline kernel, thereby making *the
> > SoC vendors are free to join the discussion, and many SoC vendors are part
> > of the kernel community, so calling this unilateral is plain wrong.
>
> you're free to believe that, vladimir. i've explained why that
> hasn't happened, in prior messages. can we move forward, please?
I prefer
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 08:52:43AM +0100, luke.leighton wrote:
> coming back to what you said earlier: i'm formulating what to say to
> allwinner [and need to pre-send something by monday so that they can
> consider it before the meeting]. so far, it consists of:
>
> * device-tree is what the li
Tomasz Figa
writes:
> Seeing from your posts you don't have any knowledge on how Linux kernel
> development works and even on how Allwinner's cooperation with our
> community looks (and seem to be completely closed to our effort of showing
> you the reality), so I'm not sure if you are the rig
fre 2013-06-07 klockan 09:02 +0100 skrev luke.leighton:
> ok. so. we come back to the question again: what shall i propose to
> them that they consider doing, and what benefit would it be to them to
> do so?
Just tell them that the kernel is moving to a different configuration
syntax called De
2013/6/7 Olof Johansson :
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 8:13 AM, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 7:54 PM, luke.leighton
>> wrote:
>>> augh. ok. solutions. what are the solutions here?
>>
>> Luke if you really want to fix this a good solution is to have
>> Allwinner join Linaro
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 09:48:22AM +0200, Vladimir Pantelic wrote:
> luke.leighton wrote:
>> 3 days remaining on the clock.
>
> what catastrophic thing will happen when the time runs out?
Maybe the world will explode into tiny small bits? Probably not. I
suspect nothing of any relevance to us.
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 10:40:37AM +0200, Vladimir Pantelic wrote:
> luke.leighton wrote:> so.
> >
> > coming back to what you said earlier: i'm formulating what to say to
> > allwinner [and need to pre-send something by monday so that they can
> > consider it before the meeting]. so far, it c
On Friday 07 of June 2013 08:52:43 luke.leighton wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Tomasz Figa
wrote:
> > On Thursday 06 of June 2013 13:49:38 luke.leighton wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Tomasz Figa
> >
> > wrote:
> >> > Luke,
> >> >
> >> > On Thursday 06 of June 2013 13:2
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 09:02:43AM +0100, luke.leighton wrote:
> ok. so. we come back to the question again: what shall i propose to
> them that they consider doing, and what benefit would it be to them to
> do so?
>
> i cannot go to them and say "you have to do this [insert proposal
> here]"
luke.leighton wrote:> so.
>
> coming back to what you said earlier: i'm formulating what to say to
> allwinner [and need to pre-send something by monday so that they can
> consider it before the meeting]. so far, it consists of:
>
> * device-tree is what the linux kernel community has come up
On 07/06/2013 10:06, luke.leighton wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Vladimir Pantelic wrote:
>> luke.leighton wrote:
>>> 3 days remaining on the clock.
>>
>> what catastrophic thing will happen when the time runs out?
> no catastrophe, vladimir: all that happens is that an opportunity i
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Vladimir Pantelic wrote:
> luke.leighton wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Vladimir Pantelic
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 4 days? WTF? since when did setting an ultimatum to the kernel
>>> community work?
>>
>>
>> i was only informed of the opportunity 2 days ago,
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> If companies are going to go off and invent the square wheel, and that
> makes *them* suffer the loss of being able to merge back into the
> mainline kernel, thereby making *their* job of moving forward with
> their kernel versions
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> On Thursday 06 of June 2013 13:49:38 luke.leighton wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Tomasz Figa
> wrote:
>> > Luke,
>> >
>> > On Thursday 06 of June 2013 13:24:57 luke.leighton wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:01 AM, Tomasz Figa
luke.leighton wrote:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Vladimir Pantelic wrote:
4 days? WTF? since when did setting an ultimatum to the kernel
community work?
i was only informed of the opportunity 2 days ago, vladimir. this is
an important meeting. of course the linux kernel community is
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Vladimir Pantelic wrote:
> 4 days? WTF? since when did setting an ultimatum to the kernel
> community work?
i was only informed of the opportunity 2 days ago, vladimir. this is
an important meeting. of course the linux kernel community is
entirely free to:
* c
On Thursday 06 June 2013, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> So yes, Allwinner has an evil vendor tree (c), with a solution similar yet
> inferior (because not generic enough) to the device tree, but they show
> interest on going down the mainline road.
Right, and of course there is nothing special about that
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 07:28:10PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> I should also add that Allwinner not only talked to us already, but also
> expressed interest in doing actual modern kernel development (like using
> "recently" introduced kernel frameworks, like the clk framework).
>
> I've received
tor 2013-06-06 klockan 13:22 +0100 skrev luke.leighton:
> idea: hook into devicetree gpio functions to allow script-fex gpio
functions to gain access in a separate module? that sort of thing.
No. Drop FEX from the kernel, use DT. There is no reason why the kernel
shold care about the FEX format
tor 2013-06-06 klockan 13:19 +0100 skrev luke.leighton:
> mass-volume tablet, mass-volume IPTV box. android OS, nothing else.
Which still includes a number of possible configurations with different
i2c, spi, usb etc devices connected on the board. Because Allwinner is
not using mainline methods
Hi everyone,
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 09:00:00AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 8:13 AM, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 7:54 PM, luke.leighton
> > wrote:
> >> augh. ok. solutions. what are the solutions here?
> >
> > Luke if you really want to fix
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 8:13 AM, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 7:54 PM, luke.leighton wrote:
>> augh. ok. solutions. what are the solutions here?
>
> Luke if you really want to fix this a good solution is to have
> Allwinner join Linaro and provide an engineer to the Linar
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 11:38:52PM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> their sheer overwhelming success provides us with mass-volume
> ultra-low cost hardware. to not make an effort to accommodate them
> would in this specific instance be a huge missed opportunity,
> responsibility for w
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 7:54 PM, luke.leighton wrote:
> augh. ok. solutions. what are the solutions here?
Luke if you really want to fix this a good solution is to have
Allwinner join Linaro and provide an engineer to the Linaro effort.
That engineer will get educated on the right way to do ke
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 7:02 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 01:24:57PM +0100, luke.leighton wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:01 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>
>> > I don't see any other solution here than moving all the Allwinner code to
>> > DT (as it has been suggested in this t
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 01:24:57PM +0100, luke.leighton wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:01 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>
> > I don't see any other solution here than moving all the Allwinner code to
> > DT (as it has been suggested in this thread several times already), as
> > this is the only hardw
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 01:22:04PM +0100, luke.leighton wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Henrik Nordström
> wrote:
> > tor 2013-06-06 klockan 00:54 +0100 skrev luke.leighton:
> >
> >> > Not really the case. Actually the opposite. DT have this as well, and
> >> > integrated in device probin
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 01:24:57PM +0100, luke.leighton wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:01 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>
> > I don't see any other solution here than moving all the Allwinner code to
> > DT (as it has been suggested in this thread several times already), as
> > this is the only hardw
On Thursday 06 of June 2013 13:49:38 luke.leighton wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Tomasz Figa
wrote:
> > Luke,
> >
> > On Thursday 06 of June 2013 13:24:57 luke.leighton wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:01 AM, Tomasz Figa
> >
> > wrote:
> >> > I don't see any other solution here
luke.leighton wrote:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Henrik Nordström
wrote:
tor 2013-06-06 klockan 00:54 +0100 skrev luke.leighton:
> Not really the case. Actually the opposite. DT have this as well, and
> integrated in device probing. Allwinner need to hack every driver used
> to add their
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> Luke,
>
> On Thursday 06 of June 2013 13:24:57 luke.leighton wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:01 AM, Tomasz Figa
> wrote:
>> > I don't see any other solution here than moving all the Allwinner code
>> > to DT (as it has been suggested in this
Luke,
On Thursday 06 of June 2013 13:24:57 luke.leighton wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:01 AM, Tomasz Figa
wrote:
> > I don't see any other solution here than moving all the Allwinner code
> > to DT (as it has been suggested in this thread several times
> > already), as this is the only hardw
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:01 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> I don't see any other solution here than moving all the Allwinner code to
> DT (as it has been suggested in this thread several times already), as
> this is the only hardware description method supported by ARM Linux.
i repeat again: please s
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Henrik Nordström
wrote:
> tor 2013-06-06 klockan 00:54 +0100 skrev luke.leighton:
>
>> > Not really the case. Actually the opposite. DT have this as well, and
>> > integrated in device probing. Allwinner need to hack every driver used
>> > to add their gpio requests
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:15 AM, Henrik Nordström
wrote:
> conditions. I don't know what you really mean here, only that it's not
> "target market".
mass-volume tablet, mass-volume IPTV box. android OS, nothing else.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
Hi Thomas,
On Thursday 06 of June 2013 11:27:23 Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Dear Tomasz Figa,
>
> On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 02:01:14 +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > I don't see any other solution here than moving all the Allwinner
> > code to DT (as it has been suggested in this thread several times
> > al
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 02:01:14AM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> I don't see any other solution here than moving all the Allwinner code to
> DT (as it has been suggested in this thread several times already), as
> this is the only hardware description method supported by ARM Linux.
Well, the serv
Hello,
On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 16:48:27 -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
> > fex covers *eevvveeerrthng* - right from flipping the
> > multiplexing for all 3 SD/MMC cards so that you can pretend that SD0
> > is SD2 and you can specify *different* GPIOs for each to say which
> > is
>
> Yo
Dear Tomasz Figa,
On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 02:01:14 +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> I don't see any other solution here than moving all the Allwinner
> code to DT (as it has been suggested in this thread several times
> already), as this is the only hardware description method supported
> by ARM Linux.
H
On Jun 6, 2013, at 12:07 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> [ please do try to remove debian-release from replies - my mistake
> please try not to propagage it, even though it may be too late!]
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:16 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> wrote:
>
> eyy, allo russell
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 11:56:43PM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> so there's a lot of factors which i believe the linux kernel
> developers are not aware of, and haven't taken into account, and to
> place blame onto the SoC vendors for not working with *you* when *you*
> haven't made
ons 2013-06-05 klockan 23:20 +0100 skrev luke.leighton:
> ok: great. so we have something that i can potentially propose to
> them. now: what reason can i give that they should accept this?
> what's the biggest incentive for them, here, to make these changes?
> what would they gain?
Mainly a
tor 2013-06-06 klockan 00:54 +0100 skrev luke.leighton:
> > Not really the case. Actually the opposite. DT have this as well, and
> > integrated in device probing. Allwinner need to hack every driver used
> > to add their gpio requests to have pinmuxing triggered.
>
> augh. ok. solutions. wha
tor 2013-06-06 klockan 00:52 +0100 skrev luke.leighton:
> > How is the Allwinner kernel going to load the driver for the pca9532?
> > The mainline pca9532 driver does not understand fex so it can't read
> > the necessary initialization data.
>
> jon: you're immediately outside of the target marke
On Thursday 06 of June 2013 00:54:02 luke.leighton wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 12:40 AM, Henrik Nordström
>
> wrote:
> > tor 2013-06-06 klockan 00:26 +0100 skrev luke.leighton:
> >> no john - they've only added it to the multiplexed sections of the
> >>
> >> drivers which they themselves ha
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 12:40 AM, Henrik Nordström
wrote:
> tor 2013-06-06 klockan 00:26 +0100 skrev luke.leighton:
>
>> no john - they've only added it to the multiplexed sections of the
>> drivers which they themselves have written. such as
>> drivers/usb/sun{N}i_usb/*.[ch], drivers/block/nand/
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 12:40 AM, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
> I have a Cubieboard and I have a pca9532 on my desk. Now I want to
> attach this pca9532 to the Cubieboard so I wire them together on I2C.
>
> How is the Allwinner kernel going to load the driver for the pca9532?
> The mainline pca9532
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>> their sheer overwhelming success provides us with mass-volume
>> ultra-low cost hardware. to not make an effort to accommodate them
>> would in this specific instance be a huge missed opportunity,
> OK, this is a large volume of hardware t
tor 2013-06-06 klockan 00:26 +0100 skrev luke.leighton:
> no john - they've only added it to the multiplexed sections of the
> drivers which they themselves have written. such as
> drivers/usb/sun{N}i_usb/*.[ch], drivers/block/nand/sun{N}_i,
> arch/arm/mach-sun{N}i and so on.
And a number of SP
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 7:26 PM, luke.leighton wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 12:07 AM, jonsm...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 6:47 PM, luke.leighton
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:59 PM, Henrik Nordström
>>> wrote:
>>>
> and then there's the boot0 and boot1
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 7:26 PM, luke.leighton wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 12:07 AM, jonsm...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 6:47 PM, luke.leighton
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:59 PM, Henrik Nordström
>>> wrote:
>>>
> and then there's the boot0 and boot1
On Wednesday 05 of June 2013 23:38:52 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Tomasz Figa
wrote:
> > Hi Luke,
>
> allo tomasz :)
>
> ok - much of what you say is duplicated by what russell said, so in
> effect the same reply is relevant, but there's been some cr
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 12:07 AM, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 6:47 PM, luke.leighton wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:59 PM, Henrik Nordström
>> wrote:
>>
and then there's the boot0 and boot1 loaders, these *do* have
>>
>>> no, these are not tiny. boot0 is 24K
ons 2013-06-05 klockan 16:54 -0600 skrev Stephen Warren:
> 1) Put all the parameters in the U-Boot configuration header. This is
> normal.
Yes, we do so today for U-Boot SPL. But this won't fit very well with
the Allwinner ODM workflow where one binary image works on a wide range
of board configu
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 6:47 PM, luke.leighton wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:59 PM, Henrik Nordström
> wrote:
>
>>> and then there's the boot0 and boot1 loaders, these *do* have
>
>> no, these are not tiny. boot0 is 24KB to fit the initial embedded SRAM
>> (not cache), but boot1 is on p
[removing debian-release again - at their request]
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> Allwinner has just reinvented a wheel, without even considering the fact
> that it has been already invented.
apologies, tomasz, but i believe i covered this issue in, again, my
reply to rus
On 06/05/2013 03:59 PM, Henrik Nordström wrote:
> ons 2013-06-05 klockan 22:24 +0100 skrev Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton:
...
>> so the point is: if anyone wishes me to propose to allwinner that
>> they convert over to devicetree, or any other proposal which involves
>> significant low-level change
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:59 PM, Henrik Nordström
wrote:
>> and then there's the boot0 and boot1 loaders, these *do* have
> no, these are not tiny. boot0 is 24KB to fit the initial embedded SRAM
> (not cache), but boot1 is on pair with u-boot in size and runs from
> DRAM.
btw, please lis
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 08:46:30PM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> to begin to describe the problem in getting allwinner soc source code
> upstream is this: not only do we have the usual "let's get it out the
> door as fast as possible" learning curve of a very young, very new and
> b
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> Hi Luke,
allo tomasz :)
ok - much of what you say is duplicated by what russell said, so in
effect the same reply is relevant, but there's been some cross-over.
i'll summarise below and cut all but the key question below:
> I tend to disag
ons 2013-06-05 klockan 22:15 +0100 skrev Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton:
> what we do not want to happen is that they see upstream patches being
> submitted, they merge them into their internal tree (which to date has
> had zero upstream changes: they're currently only just getting round
> to doing
On Wednesday 05 of June 2013 22:16:37 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 03:00:13PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > 2) Having U-Boot itself read a DT and configure itself, just like the
> > kernel does. This is relatively new, and only supported by a few
> > boards
> > (all
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:47 PM, Henrik Nordström
wrote:
> ons 2013-06-05 klockan 22:15 +0100 skrev Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton:
>
>> what we do not want to happen is that they see upstream patches being
>> submitted, they merge them into their internal tree (which to date has
>> had zero upstrea
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 05:38:45PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> I haven't personally dealt with any nvidia arm devices, so I have no
> idea how those are turning out, nor have I looked much at the marvell
> ones yet (even though I have a cubox sitting on my desk I intend to play
> around with).
On Wednesday 05 of June 2013 16:48:27 jonsm...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 3:52 AM, Ben Hutchings
wrote:
> > > The 3.8.y branch is over, so I think we have to move to 3.9, ready
> > > or
> > > not. I mer
[ please do try to remove debian-release from replies - my mistake
please try not to propagage it, even though it may be too late!]
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:16 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
eyy, allo russell, long time since we last spoke, which was eek around
2004 for that cirrus logic 9
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
