Arnd,
Going through this a couple questions came out...
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:35:50PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 18 June 2013, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
+
+ ranges =
+ 0x8200 0 0x40x0001 0x4
0
On Tuesday 18 June 2013, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
Although I'd like the binding to take this into account, for there's no
point in restricting it -a priori- I can't see any advantage on doing
fully dynamic window configuration on devices that are fixed in the
first place. It sounds like bloating
On Wednesday 19 June 2013, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
Arnd,
Going through this a couple questions came out...
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:35:50PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 18 June 2013, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
+
+ ranges =
+
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 02:11:58PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
Mmm.. and why is this option acceptable?
As I explained on IRC, there is no requirement to pick a specific bus
aperture. The only two sensible choices are to make the bus address
the same as the CPU address, or to make the bus
On Wednesday 19 June 2013, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
Today 18:53:48
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 02:11:58PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
Mmm.. and why is this option acceptable?
As I explained on IRC, there is no requirement to pick a specific bus
aperture. The only two sensible
Now that mbus has been added to the device tree, it's possible to
move the PCIe nodes out of internal registers, placing it directly
below the mbus. This is a more accurate representation of the
hardware.
Signed-off-by: Ezequiel Garcia ezequiel.gar...@free-electrons.com
---
On Tuesday 18 June 2013, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
+ ranges =
+ 0x8200 0 0x40x0001 0x4 0
0x2000
+ 0x8200 0 0x80x0001 0x8 0
0x2000
+
Dear Arnd Bergmann,
On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:29:35 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
To clarify my earlier comment, I think it would be nicer to write this as
ranges =
0x8200 0 0x40x0001 0x4 0
0x2000
Dear Arnd Bergmann,
On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:18:58 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
ranges =
0x8200 0 0x40x0001 0x4
0 0x2000
0x8200 0 0x80x0001 0x8
0
On Tuesday 18 June 2013, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
To clarify my earlier comment, I think it would be nicer to write this as
ranges =
0x8200 0 0x40x0001 0x4 0
0x2000
0x8200 0
On Tuesday 18 June 2013, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:18:58 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
ranges =
0x8200 0 0x40x0001
0x4 0 0x2000
0x8200 0 0x8
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 08:22:08PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
Arnd, we've discussed this at length with you while getting the PCIe
driver merged, and we've explained this to you numerous times. Could
you please understand that any of your proposal that suggests writing
down
On Tuesday 18 June 2013, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 08:22:08PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
Arnd, we've discussed this at length with you while getting the PCIe
driver merged, and we've explained this to you numerous times. Could
you please understand that any
On Tuesday 18 June 2013, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
+
+ ranges =
+ 0x8200 0 0x40x0001 0x4 0
0x2000
+ 0x8200 0 0x80x0001 0x8 0
0x2000
+
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:20:07PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 18 June 2013, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 08:22:08PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
Arnd, we've discussed this at length with you while getting the PCIe
driver merged, and we've explained
15 matches
Mail list logo
