On 10/23/2012 4:49 AM, Jon Hunter wrote:
> Therefore, I believe it will improve search time and hence, boot time if
> we have interrupt-parent defined in each node.
I strongly suspect (based on many years of performance tuning, with
special focus on boot time) that the time difference will be com
On 10/23/2012 12:03 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I much prefer having drivers explicitly manage all their resources,
> which would mean that pinctrl calls need to be done on probe() and, if
> necessary, during suspend()/resume().
Per-driver resource management is certainly convenient when y
ot;.
Now I see that you meant that the driver should explicitly call
abstracted functions.
On 10/23/2012 7:20 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> HI,
>
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 07:02:09AM -1000, Mitch Bradley wrote:
>> On 10/23/2012 12:03 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>&g
On 10/23/2012 1:15 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
> Hi Mitch,
>
> On 10/23/2012 11:55 AM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
>> On 10/23/2012 4:49 AM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>
>>> Therefore, I believe it will improve search time and hence, boot time if
>>> we have interrupt-parent
On 7/31/2012 6:56 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 07:32:20PM +0900, Alex Courbot wrote:
>> On 07/31/2012 07:45 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> I wonder if using the same structure/array as input and output would
>>> simplify the API; the platform data would fill in the fields ment
On 7/31/2012 8:38 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 08:22:17PM +0800, Mitch Bradley wrote:
>> On 7/31/2012 6:56 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 07:32:20PM +0900, Alex Courbot wrote:
>>>> On 07/31/2012 07:45 AM, Stephen Warren
On 10/9/2012 11:16 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 10/01/2012 12:39 PM, Jon Loeliger wrote:
>>>
>>> What more do you think needs discussion re: dtc+cpp?
>>
>> How not to abuse the ever-loving shit out of it? :-)
>
> Perhaps we can just handle this through the regular patch review
> process; I think
On 10/10/2012 7:09 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On 10/09/2012 04:16 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 10/01/2012 12:39 PM, Jon Loeliger wrote:
What more do you think needs discussion re: dtc+cpp?
>>>
>>> How not to abuse the ever-loving shit out of it? :-)
>>
>> Perhaps we can just handle this
On 10/10/2012 8:40 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 10/10/2012 11:09 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On 10/09/2012 04:16 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> On 10/01/2012 12:39 PM, Jon Loeliger wrote:
>
> What more do you think needs discussion re: dtc+cpp?
How not to abuse the ever-loving shit
On 10/10/2012 8:45 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 10/10/2012 12:23 PM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
>> On 10/10/2012 7:09 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On 10/09/2012 04:16 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>> On 10/01/2012 12:39 PM, Jon Loeliger wrote:
>>>>>>
>&g
On 10/10/2012 1:16 PM, David Gibson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:33:31AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On 10/10/2012 10:16 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> On 10/10/2012 01:24 AM, David Gibson wrote:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 10:43:50PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
> On Oct 9, 2012, at 6:04
It seems to me that this capebus discussion is missing an important
point. The name capebus suggests that it is a bus, so there should be a
parent node to represent that bus. It should have a driver whose API
implements all of the system-interface functions a cape needs.
If you look at the way t
On 11/13/2012 8:29 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 11/13/2012 11:10 AM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
>> It seems to me that this capebus discussion is missing an important
>> point. The name capebus suggests that it is a bus, so there should be a
>> parent node to represent that b
On 11/6/2012 12:37 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 11/05/2012 01:40 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>> Hey folks,
>>
>> As promised, here is my early draft to try and capture what device
>> tree overlays need to do and how to get there. Comments and
>> suggestions greatly appreciated.
>
> Interesting. This
On 11/8/2012 3:28 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>
> Op 7 nov. 2012, om 23:35 heeft Ryan Mallon het volgende
> geschreven:
>
>> On 06/11/12 08:40, Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Grant Likely
>>> wrote:
>>>
Jane is building custom BeagleBone expansion boards called 'ca
On 12/17/2012 11:36 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 12/17/2012 05:10 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>> Nvidia's Tegra has multiple uart controller which supports:
>> - APB dma based controller fifo read/write.
>> - End Of Data interrupt in incoming data to know whether end
>> of frame achieve or not.
On 12/17/2012 12:04 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 12/17/2012 02:58 PM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
>> On 12/17/2012 11:36 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> On 12/17/2012 05:10 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>>>> Nvidia's Tegra has multiple uart controller which supports:
&
On 8/1/2012 9:47 AM, Alex Courbot wrote:
> On 07/31/2012 09:55 PM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
>> On 7/31/2012 8:38 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 08:22:17PM +0800, Mitch Bradley wrote:
>>>> On 7/31/2012 6:56 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>>>
On 8/6/2012 5:58 PM, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 08:35:51AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 4:18 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>
>>> I can't comment on the sysfs-vs-dev interface location, but I don't
>>> think it addresses Johannes' issue; finding out w
On 8/16/2012 8:38 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 08/16/2012 12:08 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>> Some device drivers (panel backlights especially) need to follow precise
>> sequences for powering on and off, involving gpios, regulators, PWMs
>> with a precise powering order and delays to respect b
On 1/18/2013 2:42 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 01/18/2013 04:40 PM, Andres Salomon wrote:
>> Bad news on this patch; I've been told that it breaks booting on an
>> XO-1.5. Does anyone from OLPC know why yet?
>
> What are the settings of CR0 and CR4 on kernel entry on XO-1.5?
CR0 is 0x80
On 1/18/2013 4:35 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 01/18/2013 05:05 PM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/18/2013 2:42 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>> On 01/18/2013 04:40 PM, Andres Salomon wrote:
>>>> Bad news on this patch; I've been told that it
://dev.laptop.org/olpc-2.6 . (commit
5b9429be6056864b938ff6f39e5df3cecbbfcf4b).
Please cc me (Mitch Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) on comments.
OLPC users will need to upgrade their firmware to
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/OLPC_Firmware_Q2B14 to use this.
diff --git a/.config b/.config
index 6087ae7..f
David Miller wrote:
...
Can we please not have N different interfaces to the open-firmware
calls so that perhaps powerpc and Sparc have a chance of using this
code too?
The base interface function is callofw(), which is effectively identical
to call_prom_ret() in arch/powerpc/kernel/prom_in
I made all the changes Pekka suggested, except:
+ security = strncmp(propname, "security-", 9) == 0;
+ len = 0;
Redundant assignment, no?
+ if (!security)
+ (void)callofw("getproplen", 2, 1, node,
propname, &len);
That assig
David Miller wrote:
We don't generally export binary representation
files out of /proc or /sys, in fact this rule I believe is layed
our precisely somewhere at least in the sysfs case.
pci-sysfs exports PCI config space in binary.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscr
We could of course have the interface work either on a copy of the tree
or on a real OF (though that means changing things like get_property on
powerpc and fixing the gazillions of users) but I tend to think that
working on a copy always is more efficient.
The patch that I posted creates a
Segher has a modification to the devtree patch that creates a lower
level ops vector that can be implemented with callback or non-callback.
It is still being tested.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More
28 matches
Mail list logo
