Hi Stefano,
On 04/02/2021 22:39, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
After the discussion with Rob, it is clear that we have to add a check
on the node name for "pcie" in dt_bus_pci_match. However, that wouldn't
solve the problem reported by Elliot, because in this case the node name
is "pci" not "pcie".
On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 9:51 PM Elliott Mitchell wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 03:52:26PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 3:33 PM Stefano Stabellini
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 4 Feb 2021, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 2:36 PM Stefano Stabellini
> >
On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 03:52:26PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 3:33 PM Stefano Stabellini
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 4 Feb 2021, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 2:36 PM Stefano Stabellini
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 4 Feb 2021, Rob Herring wrote:
> >
On Thu, 4 Feb 2021, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 04/02/2021 00:13, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Feb 2021, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 at 22:18, Stefano Stabellini
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > But aside from PCIe, let's say that we know of a few nodes for which
> > > > > > "reg"
On Thu, 4 Feb 2021, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 3:33 PM Stefano Stabellini
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 4 Feb 2021, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 2:36 PM Stefano Stabellini
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 4 Feb 2021, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2
On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 3:33 PM Stefano Stabellini
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 4 Feb 2021, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 2:36 PM Stefano Stabellini
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 4 Feb 2021, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 11:56 AM Stefano Stabellini
> > > > wrote:
> > >
On Thu, 4 Feb 2021, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 2:36 PM Stefano Stabellini
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 4 Feb 2021, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 11:56 AM Stefano Stabellini
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Rob,
> > > >
> > > > We have a question on the PCIe device tr
On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 2:36 PM Stefano Stabellini
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 4 Feb 2021, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 11:56 AM Stefano Stabellini
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Rob,
> > >
> > > We have a question on the PCIe device tree bindings. In summary, we have
> > > come across the Rasp
On Thu, 4 Feb 2021, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 11:56 AM Stefano Stabellini
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Rob,
> >
> > We have a question on the PCIe device tree bindings. In summary, we have
> > come across the Raspberry Pi 4 PCIe description below:
> >
> >
> > pcie0: pcie@7d50 {
> >
On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 11:56 AM Stefano Stabellini
wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> We have a question on the PCIe device tree bindings. In summary, we have
> come across the Raspberry Pi 4 PCIe description below:
>
>
> pcie0: pcie@7d50 {
>compatible = "brcm,bcm2711-pcie";
>reg = <0x0 0x7d50
Hi Rob,
We have a question on the PCIe device tree bindings. In summary, we have
come across the Raspberry Pi 4 PCIe description below:
pcie0: pcie@7d50 {
compatible = "brcm,bcm2711-pcie";
reg = <0x0 0x7d50 0x0 0x9310>;
device_type = "pci";
#address-cells = <3>;
#interrup
On 04/02/2021 00:13, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2021, Julien Grall wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 at 22:18, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
But aside from PCIe, let's say that we know of a few nodes for which
"reg" needs a special treatment. I am not sure it makes sense to proceed
with pa
On Wed, 3 Feb 2021, Julien Grall wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 at 22:18, Stefano Stabellini
> wrote:
> > > > But aside from PCIe, let's say that we know of a few nodes for which
> > > > "reg" needs a special treatment. I am not sure it makes sense to proceed
> > > > with parsing those nodes without
On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 at 22:18, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > But aside from PCIe, let's say that we know of a few nodes for which
> > > "reg" needs a special treatment. I am not sure it makes sense to proceed
> > > with parsing those nodes without knowing how to deal with that.
> >
> > I believe t
On Wed, 3 Feb 2021, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 03/02/2021 00:18, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Feb 2021, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > On 02/02/2021 18:12, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > > On 02/02/2021 17:47, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> > > > > The handle_device() function has been returning failure
On 03/02/2021 00:18, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Tue, 2 Feb 2021, Julien Grall wrote:
On 02/02/2021 18:12, Julien Grall wrote:
On 02/02/2021 17:47, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
The handle_device() function has been returning failure upon
encountering a device address which was invalid. A devic
On Tue, 2 Feb 2021, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 02/02/2021 18:12, Julien Grall wrote:
> > On 02/02/2021 17:47, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> > > The handle_device() function has been returning failure upon
> > > encountering a device address which was invalid. A device tree which
> > > had such an entry
On 02/02/2021 18:12, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi,
On 02/02/2021 17:47, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
The handle_device() function has been returning failure upon
encountering a device address which was invalid. A device tree which
had such an entry has now been seen in the wild. As it causes no
failu
Hi,
On 02/02/2021 17:47, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
The handle_device() function has been returning failure upon
encountering a device address which was invalid. A device tree which
had such an entry has now been seen in the wild. As it causes no
failures to simply ignore the entries, ignore them
The handle_device() function has been returning failure upon
encountering a device address which was invalid. A device tree which
had such an entry has now been seen in the wild. As it causes no
failures to simply ignore the entries, ignore them.
Signed-off-by: Elliott Mitchell
---
I'm startin
20 matches
Mail list logo
