On Aug 17, 2010, at 4:03 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:55:04 -0500
> Kumar Gala wrote:
>
>> As I said to Stuart. On the Freescale SOCs we have different device
>> blocks w/varying dma address capabilities. Some are limited to 32-bits
>> some are capable of 36-bits on the same
Kumar Gala wrote:
On Aug 16, 2010, at 3:17 PM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
Kumar Gala wrote:
Do we or should we have a standard property to convey that address width a
device is capable of?
...
If I had to describe a partial address, I'd consider a property name like
"dma-address-
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:55:04 -0500
Kumar Gala wrote:
> As I said to Stuart. On the Freescale SOCs we have different device
> blocks w/varying dma address capabilities. Some are limited to 32-bits
> some are capable of 36-bits on the same SOC.
Is this something that the driver would not know ab
> -Original Message-
> From: Kumar Gala [mailto:ga...@kernel.crashing.org]
> Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 11:02 AM
> To: devicetree-discuss
> Cc: Yoder Stuart-B08248
> Subject: standard property to convey device dma address width?
>
> Do we or should we have a standard property to conve
On Aug 16, 2010, at 3:17 PM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
> Kumar Gala wrote:
>> Do we or should we have a standard property to convey that address width a
>> device is capable of?
>>
>
> What is the context? When Open Firmware was first developed, the only bus
> with partial addresses was ISA. Th
On Aug 17, 2010, at 3:50 PM, Yoder Stuart-B08248 wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Kumar Gala [mailto:ga...@kernel.crashing.org]
>> Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 11:02 AM
>> To: devicetree-discuss
>> Cc: Yoder Stuart-B08248
>> Subject: standard property to convey device dma addr
On Tuesday 17 August 2010, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 09:25:55AM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > Another difference is that we generally use ioctl for devices that can
> > be enumerated, while syscalls are for system services that are not tied to
> > a specific device. This ar
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 09:25:55AM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Another difference is that we generally use ioctl for devices that can
> be enumerated, while syscalls are for system services that are not tied to
> a specific device. This argument works both ways for PTP IMHO: On the one
> hand you
On Tuesday 17 August 2010, Richard Cochran wrote:
> > Why did you not want to add syscalls? Adding ioctls instead of syscalls
> > does not make the interface better, just less visible.
>
> I bet that, had I posted patch set with new syscalls, someone would
> have said, "You are adding new syscalls
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 12:24:48PM -0700, john stultz wrote:
> 3) I'm not sure I see the benefit of being able to have multiple
> frequency corrected time domains. In other words, what benefit would
> you get from adjusting a PTP clock's frequency instead of just
> adjusting the system's time freq
Applied.
___
devicetree-discuss mailing list
devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 09:59:39PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Why does it matter how long it takes to read the clock? I wasn't thinking
> of replacing the system clock with this, just exposing the additional
> clock as a new clockid_t value that can be accessed using the existing
> syscalls.
Ok
12 matches
Mail list logo
