On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 10:25 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi
wrote:
> Concerning platform_devices ids, sorry I wasn't meant to report an amba
> primecell binding snippet, I wanted to report here just a
> binding for a simple memory mapped platform device (not a primecell one). I
> was asking that questio
On 16 Jun 2010, at 12:41, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>> Which of course raises the question: How does the Linux community view
>>> such SoC vendors? Are they embraced and eagerly supported, or (either
>>> openly or secretly) viewed as a nuisance? How does the widespread
>>> o
Mitch Bradley wrote:
Mike Rapoport wrote:
Mitch Bradley wrote:
Mike Rapoport wrote:
Mitch Bradley wrote:
Mike Rapoport wrote:
Mitch Bradley wrote:
The second topic is the hypothetical use of OFW as a HAL. That
will not happen for several reasons. The opposition to the idea
is widespread
Mitch Bradley wrote:
I'm also objecting the step (b) and, fortunately, it's not yet the
status quo.
Current U-Boot/kernel implementations I've encountered still do not
have OS calls to resident HW access routines. But if such calls would
be allowed, my impression is that SoC vendors would m
Mitch Bradley wrote:
The second topic is the hypothetical use of OFW as a HAL. That will not
happen for several reasons. The opposition to the idea is widespread
and deeply held, and there are good arguments to support that
opposition. Furthermore, the economic conditions necessary for the
Mitch Bradley wrote:
Mike Rapoport wrote:
Mitch Bradley wrote:
Mike Rapoport wrote:
Mitch Bradley wrote:
The second topic is the hypothetical use of OFW as a HAL. That will
not happen for several reasons. The opposition to the idea is
widespread and deeply held, and there are good argument
Mitch Bradley wrote:
Mike Rapoport wrote:
Mitch Bradley wrote:
The second topic is the hypothetical use of OFW as a HAL. That will
not happen for several reasons. The opposition to the idea is
widespread and deeply held, and there are good arguments to support
that opposition. Furthermore
Concerning platform_devices ids, sorry I wasn't meant to report an amba
primecell binding snippet, I wanted to report here just a
binding for a simple memory mapped platform device (not a primecell one). I was
asking that question about platform_device
statically defined structs that use the id f
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 01:47:28PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> I think chip-select addressing should be used if that is the way HW handles
> it. If the device is described through a memory-mapping,
> ex. snippet follows:
>
> ser...@101f2000 {
> compatible = "arm,pl011";
> re
Hi Grant,
Thank you for your feedback. I went for solution 2 below temporarily, but
embedding data in the match table could be a better
solution, at least it is contained within the driver, it is a case-by-case
choice. A couple of questions.
- platform_device dynamic allocation. How should the
10 matches
Mail list logo