On 08/02/2012 12:18, David Chisnall wrote:
> Thank you for your thoughtful reply,
You too ... I let some time go by to see what others had to say. I think
it's disappointing that more people aren't concerned about this issue.
> On 2 Aug 2012, at 19:33, Doug Barton wrote:
>
>> However, my point i
> I suggest the starting point is a webpage with a link to the slides
> being presented and a simple audio stream.
two way, please. i am amazed that ietf had two-way back when it was the
mbone. with multicast actually deployed, now it is one-way.
randy
__
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
>> On 8/2/12 9:53 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/02/2012 09:44, Garrett Cooper wrote:
The "Watson/Losh connection" worked really well in BSDCan 2010 :).
>>>
>>> I wasn't g
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
> On 8/2/12 9:53 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
>>
>> On 08/02/2012 09:44, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>>>
>>> The "Watson/Losh connection" worked really well in BSDCan 2010 :).
>>
>> I wasn't going to mention that, since I didn't want to tell tales out of
On 8/2/12 9:53 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 08/02/2012 09:44, Garrett Cooper wrote:
The "Watson/Losh connection" worked really well in BSDCan 2010 :).
I wasn't going to mention that, since I didn't want to tell tales out of
school. But the fact that remote participation actually was provided for
"
Thank you for your thoughtful reply,
On 2 Aug 2012, at 19:33, Doug Barton wrote:
> However, my point is that in spite of the fact that it's non-trivial,
> the mindset on this topic needs to change if the dev summits are going
> to continue to be significant focii of both work being done and
> dec
On 08/02/2012 11:12, David Chisnall wrote:
> FreeBSD is a volunteer project.
Yeah, I get that. I've been around quite a bit longer than you have, in
case you didn't notice. :)
I understand what you're saying, it's going to take work to change this
mindset, and to provide these resources. If you r
On 2 Aug 2012, at 18:47, Doug Barton wrote:
> Cheap copout. And quite sad, especially coming from a newly elected core
> team member.
FreeBSD is a volunteer project. Our DevSummits are not run by a commercial
organisation, they are run by volunteers. I am not being paid to organise the
Cambri
On 08/02/2012 05:39, John Baldwin wrote:
> I find this a bit ironic from you given that I've met you in person at
> USENIX ATC which is an order of magnitude more expensive than BSDCan (and
> in fact, one of the reasons the US-based BSDCon died and was effectively
> supplanted by BSDCan was that BS
On 08/02/2012 10:40, Warner Losh wrote:
> One thing to remember about the IETF. There's many vendors that devote
> significant resources to the IETF. While I was at Cisco, for example, I know
> that we provided audio and video bridges to IEFT meetings to facilitate
> remote attendance at the m
On 08/02/2012 10:37, David Chisnall wrote:
>
> Thank you for volunteering to organise this. It's good to see people with
> both the motivation and experience required to do something well actively
> contributing to the project.
Cheap copout. And quite sad, especially coming from a newly elected
On Thursday, August 02, 2012 12:30:16 am Doug Barton wrote:
> On 8/1/2012 8:36 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
> > I think this proves the point everybody has been saying: you are being
needlessly contrary and confrontational.
>
> Actually if you take a step back and look at what Arnaud is saying
> object
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 09:46:42AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> > but there is
> > certainly no active attempt to exclude people who can't attend.
>
> ... and here is where I need to push back. "No active attempt to exclude
> people" is not the same thing as actively encouraging remote
> participat
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
You don't want to work cooperatively.
>
On Aug 2, 2012, at 10:46 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
> Those all sound like nice steps forward, thank you for pointing them
> out. Nothing would make me happier than to be proven wrong in this area.
> What would be nice I think would be if these steps were formalized, and
> shared more openly. Having t
On 2 Aug 2012, at 18:28, Doug Barton wrote:
> Welcome to the 21st Century. :) There are widely available audio and
> video conferencing solutions that easily scale into the thousands of
> users, at minimal cost.
>
> Yes, "It takes effort." I get that. I've been part of the effort to
> provide rem
On 08/02/2012 10:34, Doug Barton wrote:
> BTW, for those who'd like to get a flavor of what the IETF model looks
> like, the Vancouver meeting is in process now:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/84/agenda.html
>
> Feel free to join in as a lurker.
Sorry, this agenda makes it easier to se
BTW, for those who'd like to get a flavor of what the IETF model looks
like, the Vancouver meeting is in process now:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/84/agenda.html
Feel free to join in as a lurker.
--
I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do
something.
On 08/02/2012 10:13, David Chisnall wrote:
> On 2 Aug 2012, at 17:46, Doug Barton wrote:
>
>> Well that's a start. :) And where was this availability announced?
>> If I missed it, that's on me. But providing remote access that you
>> don't tell people about isn't really any better than not providi
On 2 Aug 2012, at 17:46, Doug Barton wrote:
> Well that's a start. :) And where was this availability announced? If I
> missed it, that's on me. But providing remote access that you don't tell
> people about isn't really any better than not providing it at all.
It's not widely advertised, because
On 08/02/2012 09:44, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>
> The "Watson/Losh connection" worked really well in BSDCan 2010 :).
I wasn't going to mention that, since I didn't want to tell tales out of
school. But the fact that remote participation actually was provided for
"the right people," even though I was
On 08/02/2012 05:54, David Chisnall wrote:
> On 2 Aug 2012, at 05:30, Doug Barton wrote:
>
>> I used to ask the PTB to provide *some* form of remote
>> participation for even a fraction of the events at the dev summit.
>> I don't bother asking anymore because year after year my requests
>> were me
On Aug 2, 2012, at 9:20 AM, Scott Long wrote:
>
> On Aug 2, 2012, at 12:23 AM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
>
>> Doug makes some good points.
>
> No, he doesn't. He and Arnould being argumentative and accusatory where none
> of that is warranted.
>
> I used to run the devsummits, and we did tele-co
On Aug 2, 2012, at 12:23 AM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> Doug makes some good points.
No, he doesn't. He and Arnould being argumentative and accusatory where none
of that is warranted.
I used to run the devsummits, and we did tele-conference lines for remote
people to participate. After I stepp
On 08/02/2012 09:20, Scott Long wrote:
>
> On Aug 2, 2012, at 12:23 AM, Kevin Oberman
> wrote:
>
>> Doug makes some good points.
>
> No, he doesn't.
Yes I do! (So there)
> He and Arnould being argumentative and accusatory
> where none of that is warranted.
>
> I used to run the devsummits,
On 2 Aug 2012, at 05:30, Doug Barton wrote:
> I used to ask the PTB to provide *some* form of remote participation for
> even a fraction of the events at the dev summit. I don't bother asking
> anymore because year after year my requests were met with any of:
> indifference, hostility, shrugged sh
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:30 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 8/1/2012 8:36 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>> I think this proves the point everybody has been saying: you are being
>> needlessly contrary and confrontational.
>
> Actually if you take a step back and look at what Arnaud is saying
> objectively,
Yep. In 18+ years of being subscribed to various freebsd
lists, Arnaud has the honor of being only the 2nd person
to earn a killfile entry. He's now sitting next to Jesus
Monroy, Jr.
it is not a proud from you to talk about who you are blocking.
_
On 8/1/2012 8:36 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
> I think this proves the point everybody has been saying: you are being
> needlessly contrary and confrontational.
Actually if you take a step back and look at what Arnaud is saying
objectively, he's right. If anyone can attend the meeting by simply
gettin
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 09:36:26PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
>
> I think this proves the point everybody has been saying: you
> are being needlessly contrary and confrontational.
>
Yep. In 18+ years of being subscribed to various freebsd
lists, Arnaud has the honor of being only the 2nd person
On Aug 1, 2012, at 9:28 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 1, 2012, at 3:39 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Any interested party is very welcome to approach
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>
> On Aug 1, 2012, at 3:39 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>>> Any interested party is very welcome to approach a developer and get
>>> added to the developer summits. Plenty of t
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>> Any interested party is very welcome to approach a developer and get
>> added to the developer summits. Plenty of the people at the most
>> recent developer summit weren't @freeb
On Aug 1, 2012, at 3:39 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>> Any interested party is very welcome to approach a developer and get
>> added to the developer summits. Plenty of the people at the most
>> recent developer summit weren't @freebsd
On 8/1/12 12:45 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
As for the mbuf meeting, all I can find from it online is:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/2012-June/012629.html
actually nothing has happenned on this yet that I know of, which i
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Any interested party is very welcome to approach a developer and get
> added to the developer summits. Plenty of the people at the most
> recent developer summit weren't @freebsd.org committers - we had
> plenty of representation from comp
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Arnaud Lacombe
> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Attilio Rao
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> You don't want to work cooperativ
On 8/1/12, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
[ trimm ]
>> You are forgetting one specific detail: you can always review a work
>> *after* it entered the tree. This is something you would never do, but
>> sometimes, when poor quality code is commi
Any interested party is very welcome to approach a developer and get
added to the developer summits. Plenty of the people at the most
recent developer summit weren't @freebsd.org committers - we had
plenty of representation from companies using FreeBSD.
If you want to participate, just ask a frien
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 15:45:35 -0400
From: Arnaud Lacombe
One obvious problem in FreeBSD is that committers are prosecutor,
judge and jury altogether.
As a user, I accept this.
I think if you can make a meaningful
contribution to FreeBSD developments
in the desig
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
> On 8/1/12, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Arnaud Lacombe
>>> wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Attilio Rao
wrote:
On 8/1/12, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Arnaud Lacombe
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Attilio Rao
>>> wrote:
You don't want to work cooperatively.
>>> Why is it t
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>>>
>>> You don't want to work cooperatively.
>>>
>> Why is it that mbuf's refactoring consultation is being held in
>
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>>
>> You don't want to work cooperatively.
>>
> Why is it that mbuf's refactoring consultation is being held in
> internal, private, committers-and-invite-only-restricted meeting a
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>
> You don't want to work cooperatively.
>
Why is it that mbuf's refactoring consultation is being held in
internal, private, committers-and-invite-only-restricted meeting at
BSDCan ?
Why is it that so much review and discussion on changes
wrote:
>>>> [...] We lack that right now, which is why you're trying to shoe-horn the
>>>> FDT connections into a newbus world and complaining that everything sucks
>>>> because it is a poor fit. I'd suggest that different mechanisms are
>>&g
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>
> On Jul 31, 2012, at 9:20 AM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>>> [...] We lack that right now, which is why you're trying to shoe-ho
On Jul 31, 2012, at 9:20 AM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>> [...] We lack that right now, which is why you're trying to shoe-horn the
>> FDT connections into a newbus world and complaining that everything suck
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:51 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
> [...] We lack that right now, which is why you're trying to shoe-horn the FDT
> connections into a newbus world and complaining that everything sucks because
> it is a poor fit. I'd suggest that different mecha
ces) does not mean those
>> physical devices have gone away.
It is almost always horrifically wrong.
>>>> As a rule of thumb, when a kld is unloaded there should not be any
>>>> remains of anything built previously. Without device_delete_child() or
>>>> proper
) does not mean those
> physical devices have gone away.
>
>> > As a rule of thumb, when a kld is unloaded there should not be any
>> > remains of anything built previously. Without device_delete_child() or
>> > proper singleton implementation, multiple load/unload
On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 17:06 -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 2:03:14 am Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
> > >> [..]
> > >> Honestly, though
On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 2:03:14 am Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
> >> [..]
> >> Honestly, though, I think you'll be more pissed when you find out that
the N:1 interface
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
>> [..]
>> Honestly, though, I think you'll be more pissed when you find out that the
>> N:1 interface that you want is being done in the wrong domain. But I've
>> been wro
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
> [..]
> Honestly, though, I think you'll be more pissed when you find out that the
> N:1 interface that you want is being done in the wrong domain. But I've been
> wrong before and look forward to seeing your replacement.
>
I will just p
only way to represent relationships between objects, or to
export services to the rest of the kernel. From earlier descriptions, it seems
like some of these relationships aren't very newbus-y. From what I know about
FDT, many of them are 'this device's interrupt pin is tied to
On Thursday, July 12, 2012 3:01:36 am Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
> > I'm sorry you feel that way.
> >
> > Honestly, though, I think you'll be more pissed when you find out that the
N:1 interface that you want is being done in the wrong dom
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
> I'm sorry you feel that way.
>
> Honestly, though, I think you'll be more pissed when you find out that the
> N:1 interface that you want is being done in the wrong domain. But I've been
> wrong before and look forward to seeing your re
>>
>>>> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 8, 2012, at 9:26 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 10
sion that
FreeBSD devices' subsystem provides no dynamic way for a client device
to deals with multiple bus driver. Instead all possible combination
have to be harcoded and hand-crafted, when at all possible, to look
like they're coming from a single bus...
B
gt;>> On Jul 8, 2012, at 9:26 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 8, 2012, at 7:22 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
On Monday, July 09, 2012 12:39:03 am Warner Losh wrote:
>
> On Jul 8, 2012, at 9:59 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
> >>
> >> On Jul 8, 2012, at 7:22 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> &g
raged to help make the connection
> > between unrelated devices. I think that implies that there would have
> > to be something near the root of the hiearchy willing to be the
> > owner/manager of dynamic resources.
> >
> AFAIR, rman is mostly there to manage memor
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 8, 2012, at 7:22 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>>>>>> Ok, yet another Newbus' limitation. Assuming a device exports more
>>>>>
On Jul 8, 2012, at 9:59 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 8, 2012, at 7:22 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>>> Ok, yet another Newbus' limitation. Assuming a device exports more
>>> than
;>
>>>> On Jul 8, 2012, at 7:22 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>>>>> Ok, yet another Newbus' limitation. Assuming a device exports more
>>>>> than one interface, and one of its child has need to use more than one
>>>>> interface, each i
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>
> On Jul 8, 2012, at 7:22 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>> Ok, yet another Newbus' limitation. Assuming a device exports more
>> than one interface, and one of its child has need to use more than one
>> inte
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>
> On Jul 8, 2012, at 9:26 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jul 8, 2012, at 7:22 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>>>&
On Jul 8, 2012, at 9:26 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 8, 2012, at 7:22 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>>> Ok, yet another Newbus' limitation. Assuming a device exports more
>>> than
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>
> On Jul 8, 2012, at 7:22 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>> Ok, yet another Newbus' limitation. Assuming a device exports more
>> than one interface, and one of its child has need to use more than one
>> inte
On Jul 8, 2012, at 7:22 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Ok, yet another Newbus' limitation. Assuming a device exports more
> than one interface, and one of its child has need to use more than one
> interface, each interfaces cannot register, concurrently, its own
> ivar. While I try
Hi folks,
Ok, yet another Newbus' limitation. Assuming a device exports more
than one interface, and one of its child has need to use more than one
interface, each interfaces cannot register, concurrently, its own
ivar. While I try to always have a single child per
interface/resource, I ne
find and access it? The "resource" may be a
>>>> callable interface, it doesn't really matter, I'm just wondering if the
>>>> current rman stuff could be leveraged to help make the connection
>>>> between unrelated devices. I think tha
GPIO somehow register its availability so
>> > that another driver can find and access it? The "resource" may be a
>> > callable interface, it doesn't really matter, I'm just wondering if the
>> > current rman stuff could be leveraged to help make the con
stuff could be leveraged to help make the connection
> > between unrelated devices. I think that implies that there would have
> > to be something near the root of the hiearchy willing to be the
> > owner/manager of dynamic resources.
> >
> AFAIR, rman is mostly there to
n devices is more like meta-data
needed to obtain the resources/services that other devices provide. You really
want to talk in those terms, rather than in newbus attachments.
The platform told me that pin AT91_PIOA_12 is my interrupt line. I'd like to
wire up an ISR to that please.
The
; attached bus will now have a negative offset.
>>
>> About (2) and (3), referenced device (think KLD) might go away and the
>> child will not be told. In this situation, I want the child to be
>> detached prior to its parent.
>>
>> As such, looking up other node by
ht go away and the
> child will not be told. In this situation, I want the child to be
> detached prior to its parent.
>
> As such, looking up other node by name would fit in what I call
> "bypassing newbus purpose". I might just as well export a damn
> function pointe
t_device_for_node().
-LW
AFAIR, rman is mostly there to manage memory vs. i/o mapped resources.
The more I think about it, the more FTD is the answer. The open
question now being "how to map a flexible device structure (FTD) to a
less flexible structure (Newbus)" :/
- Arnaud
_
t; current rman stuff could be leveraged to help make the connection
> between unrelated devices. I think that implies that there would have
> to be something near the root of the hiearchy willing to be the
> owner/manager of dynamic resources.
>
AFAIR, rman i
On Fri, 2012-07-06 at 14:46 -0400, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> > That's neither correct nor robust in a couple of way:
> > 1) you have no guarantee a device unit will always give you the same
> > resource.
> this raises the following
But since the FDT language provides a richer set of connections than is
possible with raw newbus, perhaps the solution to your problem should be
handled in the FDT domain where you can look up a device name and have the FDT
layer do the proper mapping into newbus rather than trying to guess
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> That's neither correct nor robust in a couple of way:
> 1) you have no guarantee a device unit will always give you the same
> resource.
this raises the following question: how can a device, today, figure
out which parent in a given d
n from Linux' `arch/arm/boot/dts/imx53-smd.dts'.
>> Here, SDHC or SPI controller are using different GPIO devices. Note
>> that these GPIO pins does not seem to be multi-function pins as
>> another .dts defines ESDHC1 as:
>>
>> esdhc@50004000 { /* ESDHC1 */
>>
t; another .dts defines ESDHC1 as:
>
> esdhc@50004000 { /* ESDHC1 */
>cd-gpios = <&gpio2 13 0>; /* GPIO3_13 */
>wp-gpios = <&gpio2 14 0>; /* GPIO3_14 */
> status = "okay";
> };
>
> AFAIK, newbus is unable to model any of the above
pins does not seem to be multi-function pins as
another .dts defines ESDHC1 as:
esdhc@50004000 { /* ESDHC1 */
cd-gpios = <&gpio2 13 0>; /* GPIO3_13 */
wp-gpios = <&gpio2 14 0>; /* GPIO3_14 */
status = "okay";
};
AFAIK, newbus is unable to model
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 08:44:25PM +0400, Ruslan Bukin wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 10:23:46AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Friday, June 22, 2012 5:11:46 am Ruslan Bukin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 08:12:41AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 4:44:41 p
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 10:23:46AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Friday, June 22, 2012 5:11:46 am Ruslan Bukin wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 08:12:41AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 4:44:41 pm Ruslan Bukin wrote:
> > > > Hi.
> > > >
> > > > I have the problem
On Friday, June 22, 2012 5:11:46 am Ruslan Bukin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 08:12:41AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 4:44:41 pm Ruslan Bukin wrote:
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > I have the problem with different behavior of snd_hdspe(4) sound card
> > > driver initializ
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 08:12:41AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 4:44:41 pm Ruslan Bukin wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > I have the problem with different behavior of snd_hdspe(4) sound card
> > driver initialization.
> >
> > If I load the driver by hand using kldload everythin
On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 4:44:41 pm Ruslan Bukin wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I have the problem with different behavior of snd_hdspe(4) sound card
> driver initialization.
>
> If I load the driver by hand using kldload everything works fine,
> but in case of loading driver at boot time (loader.conf) or
Hi.
I have the problem with different behavior of snd_hdspe(4) sound card
driver initialization.
If I load the driver by hand using kldload everything works fine,
but in case of loading driver at boot time (loader.conf) or compile
in kernel the driver can't initialize propertly.
The snd_hdspe(
Quoting Hans Petter Selasky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Sat, 24 Feb 2007 13:03:42
+0100):
> Was __FreeBSD_version bumped when this change was introduced?
Yes (700031). Not in the same commit, but shortly after it.
Bye,
Alexander.
--
BOFH excuse #151:
Some one needed the powerstrip, so they pulled t
Hi,
Was __FreeBSD_version bumped when this change was introduced?
--HPS
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 10:17:21AM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> Paolo Pisati wrote:
>
> > So, if none as anything against it, i'm going to commit this work on
> > Friday 23 around 14:00 UTC, so speak now or forever hold your peace.
>
> With any kind of luck this is redundant information for you, b
Paolo Pisati wrote:
> So, if none as anything against it, i'm going to commit this work on
> Friday 23 around 14:00 UTC, so speak now or forever hold your peace.
With any kind of luck this is redundant information for you, but I
feel compelled to ask if you have both tested your patch with the
la
Hi developers,
after re@ approval, i'm ready to commit my first interrupt filtering
patch that contains _JUST_ the modification to the newbus API: no new
features, no improvement to the interrupt handling, etcetc
The patches against a 4 weeks old HEAD are here:
http://people.freebsd.org/
On 22.03.2006, at 22:23, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
Okay, now I have got the bus device, the child device. My current
trouble is
that I want bus driver to provide some methods to child drivers.
So I created saa_bus_if.m file, declared some methods there, made
implementation
in bus driver and added
Artem Ignatiev wrote this message on Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 16:47 +0300:
> On 16.03.2006, at 15:06, Artem 'ZaZooBred' Ignatiev wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 16/03/2006 12:35 +0100, Milan Obuch wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>1. How to create the bus itself, and properly describe its
> >>>interfaces?
> >>>skel
On 16.03.2006, at 15:06, Artem 'ZaZooBred' Ignatiev wrote:
On Thu, 16/03/2006 12:35 +0100, Milan Obuch wrote:
1. How to create the bus itself, and properly describe its
interfaces?
skeletons of bus-driver and frontend-drivers would be a GREAT help.
Being far from everything knowing
1 - 100 of 182 matches
Mail list logo
