On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 5:48 PM, David Gibson
wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 11:37:51AM -0700, Anton Staaf wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 12:25 AM, David Gibson
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 11:30:42PM -0700, Anton Staaf wrote:
> [snip]
>> > I supposed modifying your suggestion, but
Hi David,
Thanks for your comments.
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 5:53 PM, David Gibson
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 10:44:40PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> A bit rushed as late here but I wanted to respond before your weekend.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 9:49 PM, David Gibson
>>
On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 08:02:40PM +0100, Olivier Martin wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I have ported the libfdt to Tianocore project [1] (under BSD license) which
> is an implementation of UEFI specification supported by Intel, ARM Ltd and
> other major companies.
> I took the libfdt directory from the
A number of the dtc testcases trigger the new "variable set but not
used" warning from gcc 4.6. That is they have variables which are
assigned, but then never read after that point.
In a couple of cases this is just because the variables aren't needed,
so this patch removes them. In subnode_offs
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 10:44:40PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> A bit rushed as late here but I wanted to respond before your weekend.
>
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 9:49 PM, David Gibson
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 05:47:34AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
[snip]
> > 1) Use a subse
On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 11:37:51AM -0700, Anton Staaf wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 12:25 AM, David Gibson
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 11:30:42PM -0700, Anton Staaf wrote:
[snip]
> > I supposed modifying your suggestion, but combining with our existing
> > convention for "reserved words
On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 12:16:30PM -0700, Anton Staaf wrote:
> With this patch the following property assignment:
>
> property = <0x12345678 'a' '\r' 100>;
>
> is equivalent to:
>
> property = <0x12345678 0x0061 0x000D 0x0064>
>
> Signed-off-by: Anton Staaf
Acked-by: David
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> For dynamic allocation, my impression is that we don't
> need any link from the spinlock user device to the controller at all,
I agree.
> but instead the controller should have a list of the available
> spinlocks.
Might make more sense to g
