On Jul 6, 2008, at 8:45 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
On Jul 6, 2008, at 8:39 PM, David Gibson wrote:
Well... they may be Linux specific by default, but they're supposed
to
be general enough that they (or at least, very small extensions)
*could* become official OF bindings, if there was still
On Jul 6, 2008, at 8:39 PM, David Gibson wrote:
Well... they may be Linux specific by default, but they're supposed to
be general enough that they (or at least, very small extensions)
*could* become official OF bindings, if there was still an OF group to
make them so. It certainly should be po
On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 12:24:56AM -0500, Olof Johansson wrote:
>
> On Jul 3, 2008, at 1:34 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>
>>> How about splitting up like this:
>>>
>>> Documentation/powerpc/device-tree/fsl/cpm.txt
>>> Documentation/powerpc/device-tree/fsl/cpm/uart.txt
>>> Documentation/powerpc/device-t
Hi Scott,
>> I'm going to move all the Freescale SoC related bindings into this new
>> file. One of the aspects of the new file is we will NOT having an
>> ordinal heading index.
>
> How about splitting up like this:
>
> Documentation/powerpc/device-tree/fsl/cpm.txt
> Documentation/powerpc/de
On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 11:26:24AM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 01:12:31AM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >>> /* deprecated; */
> >>> device_type = "i2c";
> >>
> >> How about "deprecated but kept for compatibility with true Open
> >> Firmware
> >> implementations"?
On Jul 3, 2008, at 1:34 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
How about splitting up like this:
Documentation/powerpc/device-tree/fsl/cpm.txt
Documentation/powerpc/device-tree/fsl/cpm/uart.txt
Documentation/powerpc/device-tree/fsl/tsec.txt
Documentation/powerpc/device-tree/interrupts.txt
Documentation/power
On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 01:12:31AM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> /* deprecated; */
>>> device_type = "i2c";
>>
>> How about "deprecated but kept for compatibility with true Open
>> Firmware
>> implementations"?
>
> Well, except a flat tree isn't compatible with OF at all here.
> A
I'm sure you'll hate for doing this,
No, it's an excellent move :-)
but I've asked Kim to create a new
Documentation/powerpc/fsl-device-tree-bindings.txt as part of his SEC
patch.
As a separate patch, that (at first) _only_ moves the content into
separate
files, please.
Segher
/* deprecated; */
device_type = "i2c";
How about "deprecated but kept for compatibility with true Open
Firmware
implementations"?
Well, except a flat tree isn't compatible with OF at all here.
A "device_type" promises a certain interface; a flat tree doesn't
even have the "op
Just curious... why we're maintaining documentation in the .txt file?
Because it is human-readable text?
Or is this too wild? :-)
Yes :-)
Segher
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-d
Anton Vorontsov wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 01:20:18PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
Guys,
/* deprecated; */
device_type = "i2c";
How about "deprecated but kept for compatibility with true Open Firmware
implementations"?
Seriously, you can't have a binding for "OF" and then cu
On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 01:38:17PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> On Jul 3, 2008, at 1:34 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>> Documentation/powerpc/device-tree/fsl/cpm.txt
>>> Documentation/powerpc/device-tree/fsl/cpm/uart.txt
>>
Anton Vorontsov writes:
> Just curious... why we're maintaining documentation in the .txt file?
> We could just create Documentation/powerpc/fsl-device-tree-bindings.dts
> file, that will be:
>
> 1. True device tree source file;
> 2. With a lots of comments for documentation purposes;
> 3. Could
On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 01:20:18PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> Guys,
>
> I'm sure you'll hate for doing this, but I've asked Kim to create a new
> Documentation/powerpc/fsl-device-tree-bindings.txt as part of his SEC
> patch.
Just curious... why we're maintaining documentation in the .txt file?
W
On Jul 3, 2008, at 1:34 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Scott Wood
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Kumar Gala wrote:
I'm sure you'll hate for doing this, but I've asked Kim to create
a new
Documentation/powerpc/fsl-device-tree-bindings.txt as part of his
SEC patch.
On Jul 3, 2008, at 1:28 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
Kumar Gala wrote:
I'm sure you'll hate for doing this, but I've asked Kim to create a
new Documentation/powerpc/fsl-device-tree-bindings.txt as part of
his SEC patch.
I'm going to move all the Freescale SoC related bindings into this
new file.
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kumar Gala wrote:
>>
>> I'm sure you'll hate for doing this, but I've asked Kim to create a new
>> Documentation/powerpc/fsl-device-tree-bindings.txt as part of his SEC patch.
>>
>> I'm going to move all the Freescale SoC rela
Kumar Gala wrote:
I'm sure you'll hate for doing this, but I've asked Kim to create a new
Documentation/powerpc/fsl-device-tree-bindings.txt as part of his SEC
patch.
I'm going to move all the Freescale SoC related bindings into this new
file. One of the aspects of the new file is we will NO
Guys,
I'm sure you'll hate for doing this, but I've asked Kim to create a
new Documentation/powerpc/fsl-device-tree-bindings.txt as part of his
SEC patch.
I'm going to move all the Freescale SoC related bindings into this new
file. One of the aspects of the new file is we will NOT having
19 matches
Mail list logo
