On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 04:09:39PM +, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Grant Likely
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 8:41 AM, Nicolas Pitre
> > wrote:
> >> On Wed, 19 Jan 2011, Dave Martin wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Grant Likely
> >>> wrote:
> >
On 01/19/2011 04:14 PM, Yoder Stuart-B08248 wrote:
+** Optional properties:
+
+ - no-reset : The presence of this property indicates that the MPIC
+should not be reset during runtime initialization.
+ - protected-sources : Specifies a list of interrupt sources that are
+ not
From: Stuart Yoder
define the binding for compatible = "fsl,mpic", including
the definition of 4-cell interrupt specifiers. The
3rd and 4th cells are needed to define additional
types of interrupt source outside the "normal"
external and internal interrupts in FSL SoCs. Define
error interrupt,
> +** Optional properties:
> +
> + - no-reset : The presence of this property indicates that the MPIC
> + should not be reset during runtime initialization.
> + - protected-sources : Specifies a list of interrupt sources that are
> + not
> + available for
Hi Thomas,
Yesterday I posted a new series of dt-on-arm patches[1] and announced
a new branch to use for dt development[2]. You should take a look at
that tree for your dt work.
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/1/18/239
[2] git://git.secretlab.ca/git/linux-2.6 devicetree/arm
Also, as of Monday, I
> -Original Message-
> From: Meador Inge [mailto:meador_i...@mentor.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 2:25 PM
> To: Yoder Stuart-B08248
> Cc: linuxppc-...@lists.ozlabs.org; devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org;
> Blanchard, Hollis
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] powerpc: document the MPI
On 01/18/2011 02:21 PM, Yoder Stuart-B08248 wrote:
Documentation/powerpc/dts-bindings/mpic.txt | 78
This is really the binding for an open-pic interrupt controller
and I think the name should reflect that-- open-pic.txt.
Yup, agreed.
+This binding specifies what properties and child nod
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 10:43:02 +
Dave Martin wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Apologies if this has been discussed before--- I don't see an obvious
> rebuttal in my quick searching past threads, so I'll just quickly ask
> the question:
>
> Could we use host-endianness for the device tree binary blob?
>
> The actual problem is not that DT chose to use big endian ordering, but
> rather that BE ordering was invented in the first place. ;-)
Blame the Greeks, they started it, approximately 500 B.C.
Segher
___
devicetree-discuss mailing list
devicetree-d
On 01/18/2011 01:47 PM, Yoder Stuart-B08248 wrote:
I'm not sure a complete merge into one binding makes sense. The thing that
motivated creating this new binding with 4 cells was a thread from
last year. See:
http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/devicetree-discuss/2010-January/001489.html
I ag
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 8:41 AM, Nicolas Pitre
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jan 2011, Dave Martin wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Grant Likely
>>> wrote:
>>> > The dtb isn't so much bigendian as it is network byte order.
>>>
>>> (For
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2011, Grant Likely wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 8:41 AM, Nicolas Pitre
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 19 Jan 2011, Dave Martin wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Grant Likely
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > The dtb isn't so
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 8:41 AM, Nicolas Pitre
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Jan 2011, Dave Martin wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Grant Likely
> >> wrote:
> >> > The dtb isn't so much bigendian as it is network byte order.
> >>
> >> (For me, "
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 8:41 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2011, Dave Martin wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Grant Likely
>> wrote:
>> > The dtb isn't so much bigendian as it is network byte order.
>>
>> (For me, "network byte order" is a euphemism ... > unconstructive ran
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Grant Likely
> wrote:
> > The dtb isn't so much bigendian as it is network byte order.
>
> (For me, "network byte order" is a euphemism ... unconstructive rant here>)
I concur.
> However I digress... it sounds like you
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>
> On Jan 19, 2011 3:43 AM, "Dave Martin" wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Apologies if this has been discussed before--- I don't see an obvious
>> rebuttal in my quick searching past threads, so I'll just quickly ask
>> the question:
>>
>> Cou
Hi all,
Apologies if this has been discussed before--- I don't see an obvious
rebuttal in my quick searching past threads, so I'll just quickly ask
the question:
Could we use host-endianness for the device tree binary blob?
The fdt binary format seems to lend itself strongly to a host-endian
for
On Jan 19, 2011 3:43 AM, "Dave Martin" wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Apologies if this has been discussed before--- I don't see an obvious
> rebuttal in my quick searching past threads, so I'll just quickly ask
> the question:
>
> Could we use host-endianness for the device tree binary blob?
Hi David.
Hello.
On 18-01-2011 23:29, Grant Likely wrote:
This patch adds adds
One word is enough. :-)
very basic support for booting versatile with a
device tree. It simply allows the existing machine_descs to match
against the tegra compatible values so that the kernel can boot.
Kernel paramete
19 matches
Mail list logo
