On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 09:06:15AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 11:45:01AM +0900, Alexandre
On Wednesday 17 December 2014 11:45:01 Alexandre Courbot wrote:
Actually we are not that far from being able to do completely without
any GPIO number, and maybe that's what we should aim for. I think the
only remaining offender is the sysfs interface. If we could reach GPIO
controllers
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 11:45:01AM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
Actually we are not that far from being able to do completely without
any GPIO number, and maybe that's what we should aim for. I think the
only remaining offender is the sysfs interface.
And that is a user API, and there's
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 11:45:01AM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
Actually we are not that far from being able to do completely without
any GPIO number, and maybe that's what we should aim for. I think the
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 7:26 PM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Wednesday 17 December 2014 11:45:01 Alexandre Courbot wrote:
Actually we are not that far from being able to do completely without
any GPIO number, and maybe that's what we should aim for. I think the
only remaining
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Friday 12 December 2014 22:05:37 Alexandre Courbot wrote:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 9:08 PM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Thursday 11 December 2014 16:05:04 Ray Jui wrote:
+
+- linux,gpio-base:
+Base GPIO
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 6:57 AM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Monday 15 December 2014 13:35:47 Ray Jui wrote:
Like I said previously, dynamic GPIO allocation works fine in the
kernel, as long as all of our GPIO clients in the kernel use gpiod based
API, which is what we will enforce
On Friday 12 December 2014 22:05:37 Alexandre Courbot wrote:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 9:08 PM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Thursday 11 December 2014 16:05:04 Ray Jui wrote:
+
+- linux,gpio-base:
+Base GPIO number of this controller
+
We've NAK'ed properties like this
On 12/12/2014 7:28 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Friday 12 December 2014 22:05:37 Alexandre Courbot wrote:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 9:08 PM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Thursday 11 December 2014 16:05:04 Ray Jui wrote:
+
+- linux,gpio-base:
+Base GPIO number of this controller
+
On Monday 15 December 2014 13:35:47 Ray Jui wrote:
Like I said previously, dynamic GPIO allocation works fine in the
kernel, as long as all of our GPIO clients in the kernel use gpiod based
API, which is what we will enforce going forward. The only problem is
with some of our customers
On 12/15/2014 1:57 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Monday 15 December 2014 13:35:47 Ray Jui wrote:
Like I said previously, dynamic GPIO allocation works fine in the
kernel, as long as all of our GPIO clients in the kernel use gpiod based
API, which is what we will enforce going forward. The only
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 9:08 PM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Thursday 11 December 2014 16:05:04 Ray Jui wrote:
+
+- linux,gpio-base:
+Base GPIO number of this controller
+
We've NAK'ed properties like this multiple times before, and it
doesn't get any better this time. What
On 12/12/2014 5:05 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 9:08 PM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Thursday 11 December 2014 16:05:04 Ray Jui wrote:
+
+- linux,gpio-base:
+Base GPIO number of this controller
+
We've NAK'ed properties like this multiple times
Document the GPIO device tree binding for Broadcom Cygnus SoC
Signed-off-by: Ray Jui r...@broadcom.com
Reviewed-by: Scott Branden sbran...@broadcom.com
---
.../devicetree/bindings/gpio/brcm,cygnus-gpio.txt | 87
1 file changed, 87 insertions(+)
create mode 100644
14 matches
Mail list logo
