On 6/5/08, Anton Vorontsov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is v3. I'm out of ideas if you won't like it. :-)
>
> v3:
> - Now these bindings are using bus notifiers chain, thus we adhere to the
> spi bus.
>
> By the way, this scheme (IMO) looks good for I2C devices which needs
> platform_d
On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Pierre Ossman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 20:16:24 +0400
> Anton Vorontsov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Here is v3. I'm out of ideas if you won't like it. :-)
>>
>> v3:
>> - Now these bindings are using bus notifiers chain, thus we adhere to t
On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 05:57:23PM +0200, Pierre Ossman wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 20:16:24 +0400
> Anton Vorontsov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Here is v3. I'm out of ideas if you won't like it. :-)
> >
> > v3:
> > - Now these bindings are using bus notifiers chain, thus we adhere to the
>
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Anton Vorontsov
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 12:18:56PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Anton Vorontsov
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 11:36:09AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
>> >> On T
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 12:18:56PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Anton Vorontsov
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 11:36:09AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Anton Vorontsov
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Anton Vorontsov
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 11:36:09AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Anton Vorontsov
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Well, I mentioned the usb_add_hcd()-alike approach for the mmc_spi
>> >
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 11:36:09AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Anton Vorontsov
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 10:45:17AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Anton Vorontsov
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Anton Vorontsov
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 10:45:17AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Anton Vorontsov
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Here is v3. I'm out of ideas if you won't like it. :-)
>> >
>> > v3:
>>
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 10:45:17AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Anton Vorontsov
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Here is v3. I'm out of ideas if you won't like it. :-)
> >
> > v3:
> > - Now these bindings are using bus notifiers chain, thus we adhere to the
> > spi
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Anton Vorontsov
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is v3. I'm out of ideas if you won't like it. :-)
>
> v3:
> - Now these bindings are using bus notifiers chain, thus we adhere to the
> spi bus.
>
> By the way, this scheme (IMO) looks good for I2C devices which ne
Here is v3. I'm out of ideas if you won't like it. :-)
v3:
- Now these bindings are using bus notifiers chain, thus we adhere to the
spi bus.
By the way, this scheme (IMO) looks good for I2C devices which needs
platform_data extracted from the device tree too (Cc'ing Jochen).
- Plus change
11 matches
Mail list logo