On Fri, 10 Oct 2008, Bill Gatliff wrote:
> Paul Mundt wrote:
> > Your first version should have been to linux-embedded and linux-kernel.
> > If you want to alert the linux-arm-kernel people to the fact that a
> > discussion is going on in this area, then feel free to post a
> > notification to the
Jon Loeliger wrote:
On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 09:04 -0500, Bill Gatliff wrote:
Jon Smirl wrote:
What do the device tree deities have to say about PWM support?
Dunno. What lists are they on? :)
Perhaps [EMAIL PROTECTED] too.
I thought this was what ePAPR was for.
Why would it need all that
On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 09:04 -0500, Bill Gatliff wrote:
> Jon Smirl wrote:
>
> > What do the device tree deities have to say about PWM support?
>
> Dunno. What lists are they on? :)
>
Perhaps [EMAIL PROTECTED] too.
jdl
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing lis
Paul Mundt wrote:
>> Hasn't been a problem so far. I posted the first version of the code on
>> l-a-k,
>> and got some feedback on the pwm_device API and a lot of feedback on the way
>> users wanted to use the API to realize applications. I incorporated all of
>> it,
>> and in this "release" I
Paul Mundt wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 09:03:34AM -0500, Bill Gatliff wrote:
>> Paul Mundt wrote:
>>> This is likely because some of those lists are subscribers only, so cross
>>> posting is poor form. It makes sense to keep the discussion in one place,
>>> and to send notification messages wi
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 08:59:08AM -0500, Bill Gatliff wrote:
> There isn't a lot of traffic on linux-embedded, and I'm not sure how many
> people
> who read linux-arm-kernel also read linuxppc-dev. Lkml's topic coverage is
> huge, so I don't know how many hardcore embedded developers I would enc
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 09:03:34AM -0500, Bill Gatliff wrote:
> Paul Mundt wrote:
> > This is likely because some of those lists are subscribers only, so cross
> > posting is poor form. It makes sense to keep the discussion in one place,
> > and to send notification messages with a pointer to the l
Bill Gatliff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Mundt wrote:
> > This is likely because some of those lists are subscribers only, so cross
> > posting is poor form. It makes sense to keep the discussion in one place,
> > and to send notification messages with a pointer to the list archives to
> > th
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Bill Gatliff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jon Smirl wrote:
>
>> What do the device tree deities have to say about PWM support?
>
> Dunno. What lists are they on? :)
They are on linuxppc-dev. Device trees would be used on powerpc to
control the initial setup of t
Jon Smirl wrote:
> What do the device tree deities have to say about PWM support?
Dunno. What lists are they on? :)
b.g.
--
Bill Gatliff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/lin
Paul Mundt wrote:
> This is likely because some of those lists are subscribers only, so cross
> posting is poor form. It makes sense to keep the discussion in one place,
> and to send notification messages with a pointer to the list archives to
> the other lists so folks can jump in if they really
David Woodhouse wrote:
> Subscriber-only lists are broken. Just don't use them.
You owe me a new keyboard! :)
b.g.
--
Bill Gatliff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-de
Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>
> Were did you actually sent them to? Apparently you sent them to each mailing
> list (at least linux-embedded and linuxppc-dev) _separately_ (or using bcc).
I sent them separately to linux-embedded, linuxppc-dev, and linux-arm-kernel.
Those three groups seemed to hav
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 11:00:09AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, Bill Gatliff wrote:
> > Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 11:43 -0500, Bill Gatliff wrote:
> > >> This series proposes a "generic PWM" driver API.
> > >>
> > >> This proposed API is mot
On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 18:36 +0900, Paul Mundt wrote:
> This is likely because some of those lists are subscribers only, so cross
> posting is poor form. It makes sense to keep the discussion in one place,
> and to send notification messages with a pointer to the list archives to
> the other lists s
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, Bill Gatliff wrote:
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 11:43 -0500, Bill Gatliff wrote:
> >> This series proposes a "generic PWM" driver API.
> >>
> >> This proposed API is motivated by the author's need to support
> >> pluggable devices; a secondary objec
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 1:02 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 23:06 -0500, Bill Gatliff wrote:
>> Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 11:43 -0500, Bill Gatliff wrote:
>> >> This series proposes a "generic PWM" driver API.
>> >>
>> >>
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 23:06 -0500, Bill Gatliff wrote:
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 11:43 -0500, Bill Gatliff wrote:
> >> This series proposes a "generic PWM" driver API.
> >>
> >> This proposed API is motivated by the author's need to support
> >> pluggable devices; a
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 11:43 -0500, Bill Gatliff wrote:
>> This series proposes a "generic PWM" driver API.
>>
>> This proposed API is motivated by the author's need to support
>> pluggable devices; a secondary objective is to consolidate the
>> existing PWM implement
On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 11:43 -0500, Bill Gatliff wrote:
> This series proposes a "generic PWM" driver API.
>
> This proposed API is motivated by the author's need to support
> pluggable devices; a secondary objective is to consolidate the
> existing PWM implementations behind an agreeable, consiste
Matt Sealey wrote:
> I'm all for this if you manage it.
>
> The code and API looks good. We have some projects which involve PWM
> and having a nice clean standard API like the GPIO API was on the
> wishlist.. this will make it so much easier to do fan control,
> backlight control, drive motors, a
I'm all for this if you manage it.
The code and API looks good. We have some projects which involve PWM
and having a nice clean standard API like the GPIO API was on the
wishlist.. this will make it so much easier to do fan control,
backlight control, drive motors, audio output, and the billion
o
This series proposes a "generic PWM" driver API.
This proposed API is motivated by the author's need to support
pluggable devices; a secondary objective is to consolidate the
existing PWM implementations behind an agreeable, consistent,
redundancy-reducing interface.
The code included in this pat
23 matches
Mail list logo
