Pong. ;-)
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 04:03:31PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 14:22 +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > Following up on the old discussion, I talked briefly about this
> > issue with BenH at the kernel summit. The outcome basically is that
> > it's a bit sa
On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 14:22 +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Following up on the old discussion, I talked briefly about this
> issue with BenH at the kernel summit. The outcome basically is that
> it's a bit sad to have incompatible bindings, but it's not the end
> of the world,and it's more important
On Thursday 16 August 2012, Ian Molton wrote:
> Ping :)
>
> Can we get some consensus on the right approach here? I'm loathe to code
> this if its going to be rejected.
>
> I'd prefer the driver to be properly split so we dont have the MDIO
> driver mapping the ethernet drivers address spaces, bu
On Monday 13 August 2012, Ian Molton wrote:
> On 10/08/12 11:49, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Thursday 09 August 2012, Ian Molton wrote:
> >>> The driver
> >>> already knows all those offsets and they are always the same
> >>> for all variants of mv643xx, right?
> >> Yes, but its not clean. And no
Ping :)
Can we get some consensus on the right approach here? I'm loathe to code
this if its going to be rejected.
I'd prefer the driver to be properly split so we dont have the MDIO
driver mapping the ethernet drivers address spaces, but if thats not
going to be merged, I'm not feeling like doin
On 10/08/12 11:49, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 09 August 2012, Ian Molton wrote:
>>> The driver
>>> already knows all those offsets and they are always the same
>>> for all variants of mv643xx, right?
>> Yes, but its not clean. And no amount of refactoring is
>> really going to make a nice
On Thursday 09 August 2012, Ian Molton wrote:
> > I think showing one
> > parent device with children at address 0, 1 and 2 is ok.
> Is it acceptable for the child devices to directly access the
> parents register space? because there would be no other
> way for that to work.
Yes, I see no proble
On 09/08/12 12:43, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On 08/08/12 14:19, Ian Molton wrote:
> > On 08/08/12 13:39, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> On Wednesday 08 August 2012, Ian Molton wrote:
> >>> This method would require a small amount of rework in the driver to
> >>> set up ports, rather than just one.
>
Adding devicetree-discuss and linuxppc-dev, as well as Dale Farnsworth,
who initially added the bindings for mv643xx.
On 08/08/12 14:19, Ian Molton wrote:
> On 08/08/12 13:39, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Wednesday 08 August 2012, Ian Molton wrote:
>>> The SMI / PHY stuff should look very similar, s
On 08/08/12 14:19, Ian Molton wrote:
> On 08/08/12 13:39, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Wednesday 08 August 2012, Ian Molton wrote:
>>> This method would require a small amount of rework in the driver to
>>> set up ports, rather than just one.
>> This looks quite nice, but it is still very much
10 matches
Mail list logo
