On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 02:44:23PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Take the punit lock to stop others from accessing the punit while the
> pmic i2c bus is in use. This is necessary because accessing the punit
> from the kernel may result in the punit trying to access the pmic i2c
> bus, which results
Hi,
On 12-01-17 19:45, Wolfram Sang wrote:
On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 02:44:23PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
Take the punit lock to stop others from accessing the punit while the
pmic i2c bus is in use. This is necessary because accessing the punit
from the kernel may result in the punit trying to
Hi Hans,
> So Wolfram, what is the plan with these ? As said they are necessary
> for the 2 i2c patches in this patch-set, so do you want the
> entire set of 8 i2c patches to go through an other tree to avoid
> inter tree dependencies ?
Thanks for the heads up. So, my plan was that I send a pull
Hi,
On 15-01-17 12:45, Wolfram Sang wrote:
Hi Hans,
So Wolfram, what is the plan with these ? As said they are necessary
for the 2 i2c patches in this patch-set, so do you want the
entire set of 8 i2c patches to go through an other tree to avoid
inter tree dependencies ?
Thanks for the heads
> Once I've a patch-set everyone likes I will start talking to people
> to coordinate the merging, I believe it is probably best for all this
> to be merged through the drm-intel tree. But we'll see about that
> when the patch-set is ready.
Agreed.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 02:44:23PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Take the punit lock to stop others from accessing the punit while the
> pmic i2c bus is in use. This is necessary because accessing the punit
> from the kernel may result in the punit trying to access the pmic i2c
> bus, which results
Hi,
On 12-01-17 19:45, Wolfram Sang wrote:
On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 02:44:23PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
Take the punit lock to stop others from accessing the punit while the
pmic i2c bus is in use. This is necessary because accessing the punit
from the kernel may result in the punit trying to
Hi Hans,
> So Wolfram, what is the plan with these ? As said they are necessary
> for the 2 i2c patches in this patch-set, so do you want the
> entire set of 8 i2c patches to go through an other tree to avoid
> inter tree dependencies ?
Thanks for the heads up. So, my plan was that I send a pull
Hi,
On 15-01-17 12:45, Wolfram Sang wrote:
Hi Hans,
So Wolfram, what is the plan with these ? As said they are necessary
for the 2 i2c patches in this patch-set, so do you want the
entire set of 8 i2c patches to go through an other tree to avoid
inter tree dependencies ?
Thanks for the heads
> Once I've a patch-set everyone likes I will start talking to people
> to coordinate the merging, I believe it is probably best for all this
> to be merged through the drm-intel tree. But we'll see about that
> when the patch-set is ready.
Agreed.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 02:44:23PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Take the punit lock to stop others from accessing the punit while the
> pmic i2c bus is in use. This is necessary because accessing the punit
> from the kernel may result in the punit trying to access the pmic i2c
> bus, which results
Hi,
On 12-01-17 19:45, Wolfram Sang wrote:
On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 02:44:23PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
Take the punit lock to stop others from accessing the punit while the
pmic i2c bus is in use. This is necessary because accessing the punit
from the kernel may result in the punit trying to
Hi Hans,
> So Wolfram, what is the plan with these ? As said they are necessary
> for the 2 i2c patches in this patch-set, so do you want the
> entire set of 8 i2c patches to go through an other tree to avoid
> inter tree dependencies ?
Thanks for the heads up. So, my plan was that I send a pull
Hi,
On 15-01-17 12:45, Wolfram Sang wrote:
Hi Hans,
So Wolfram, what is the plan with these ? As said they are necessary
for the 2 i2c patches in this patch-set, so do you want the
entire set of 8 i2c patches to go through an other tree to avoid
inter tree dependencies ?
Thanks for the heads
> Once I've a patch-set everyone likes I will start talking to people
> to coordinate the merging, I believe it is probably best for all this
> to be merged through the drm-intel tree. But we'll see about that
> when the patch-set is ready.
Agreed.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 02:44:23PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Take the punit lock to stop others from accessing the punit while the
> pmic i2c bus is in use. This is necessary because accessing the punit
> from the kernel may result in the punit trying to access the pmic i2c
> bus, which results
On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 02:44:23PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Take the punit lock to stop others from accessing the punit while the
> pmic i2c bus is in use. This is necessary because accessing the punit
> from the kernel may result in the punit trying to access the pmic i2c
> bus, which results
Hi,
On 12-01-17 19:45, Wolfram Sang wrote:
On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 02:44:23PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
Take the punit lock to stop others from accessing the punit while the
pmic i2c bus is in use. This is necessary because accessing the punit
from the kernel may result in the punit trying to
Hi Hans,
> So Wolfram, what is the plan with these ? As said they are necessary
> for the 2 i2c patches in this patch-set, so do you want the
> entire set of 8 i2c patches to go through an other tree to avoid
> inter tree dependencies ?
Thanks for the heads up. So, my plan was that I send a pull
Hi,
On 15-01-17 12:45, Wolfram Sang wrote:
Hi Hans,
So Wolfram, what is the plan with these ? As said they are necessary
for the 2 i2c patches in this patch-set, so do you want the
entire set of 8 i2c patches to go through an other tree to avoid
inter tree dependencies ?
Thanks for the heads
> Once I've a patch-set everyone likes I will start talking to people
> to coordinate the merging, I believe it is probably best for all this
> to be merged through the drm-intel tree. But we'll see about that
> when the patch-set is ready.
Agreed.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hi,
On 12-01-17 19:45, Wolfram Sang wrote:
On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 02:44:23PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
Take the punit lock to stop others from accessing the punit while the
pmic i2c bus is in use. This is necessary because accessing the punit
from the kernel may result in the punit trying to
Hi Hans,
> So Wolfram, what is the plan with these ? As said they are necessary
> for the 2 i2c patches in this patch-set, so do you want the
> entire set of 8 i2c patches to go through an other tree to avoid
> inter tree dependencies ?
Thanks for the heads up. So, my plan was that I send a pull
Hi,
On 15-01-17 12:45, Wolfram Sang wrote:
Hi Hans,
So Wolfram, what is the plan with these ? As said they are necessary
for the 2 i2c patches in this patch-set, so do you want the
entire set of 8 i2c patches to go through an other tree to avoid
inter tree dependencies ?
Thanks for the heads
> Once I've a patch-set everyone likes I will start talking to people
> to coordinate the merging, I believe it is probably best for all this
> to be merged through the drm-intel tree. But we'll see about that
> when the patch-set is ready.
Agreed.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hi,
On 12-01-17 19:45, Wolfram Sang wrote:
On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 02:44:23PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
Take the punit lock to stop others from accessing the punit while the
pmic i2c bus is in use. This is necessary because accessing the punit
from the kernel may result in the punit trying to
Hi Hans,
> So Wolfram, what is the plan with these ? As said they are necessary
> for the 2 i2c patches in this patch-set, so do you want the
> entire set of 8 i2c patches to go through an other tree to avoid
> inter tree dependencies ?
Thanks for the heads up. So, my plan was that I send a pull
Hi,
On 15-01-17 12:45, Wolfram Sang wrote:
Hi Hans,
So Wolfram, what is the plan with these ? As said they are necessary
for the 2 i2c patches in this patch-set, so do you want the
entire set of 8 i2c patches to go through an other tree to avoid
inter tree dependencies ?
Thanks for the heads
> Once I've a patch-set everyone likes I will start talking to people
> to coordinate the merging, I believe it is probably best for all this
> to be merged through the drm-intel tree. But we'll see about that
> when the patch-set is ready.
Agreed.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 02:44:23PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Take the punit lock to stop others from accessing the punit while the
> pmic i2c bus is in use. This is necessary because accessing the punit
> from the kernel may result in the punit trying to access the pmic i2c
> bus, which results
30 matches
Mail list logo
