> I can submit that soon, but it probably makes sense for Wolfram to
> voice whatever his concerns were about "questionable" properties before
> I document what's there.
Please don't feel offended. The things I noticed are:
a) no documentation
b) 'polarity' is a direct mapping to the register
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 7:43 AM, Nate Case wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 07:14 +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>> And while doing this and figuring the pro/cons of those methods, I
>> stumbled over this commit:
>>
>> gpio: pca953x: Get platform_data from OpenFirmware
>> (1965d30356c1c65
> Aside from any issues you have with the properties themselves, what's
> your take on this approach?
Well, my approach for AT24 looked very similar to your approach. In fact, even
the motivation was the same as yours :) Well, the outcome of this is the
current thread and no definite solution yet.
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 8:01 AM, Nate Case wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 23:40 -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
>> For your future reference, patches that look at the device tree should
>> also cc: devicetree-disc...@lists.ozlabs.org so that new bindings can
>> be reviewed and common mistakes can be avo
On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 07:14 +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> And while doing this and figuring the pro/cons of those methods, I
> stumbled over this commit:
>
> gpio: pca953x: Get platform_data from OpenFirmware
> (1965d30356c1c65660ba3330927671cfe81acdd5)
Aside from any issues you ha
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 23:40 -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> For your future reference, patches that look at the device tree should
> also cc: devicetree-disc...@lists.ozlabs.org so that new bindings can
> be reviewed and common mistakes can be avoided. It is expected that
> new device tree bindings a
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Anton Vorontsov
wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 09:48:50AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
>> But the focus is still on creating pdata. If a translator gets too
>> big, then sure, split it into a separate file. Until then, there I
>> see no good reason to do so now.
>
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 11:14 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>> Will check this tomorrow.
>
> And while doing this and figuring the pro/cons of those methods, I stumbled
> over this commit:
>
> gpio: pca953x: Get platform_data from OpenFirmware
> (1965d30356c1c65660ba3330927671cfe81acdd5)
>
> Will check this tomorrow.
And while doing this and figuring the pro/cons of those methods, I stumbled
over this commit:
gpio: pca953x: Get platform_data from OpenFirmware
(1965d30356c1c65660ba3330927671cfe81acdd5)
It looks to me that it missed all people involved in OF/DT-deve
On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 09:48:50AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Anton Vorontsov
[...]
> > It's *always* a small amound of code, at a start. Then we get
> > floppy disk drivers and the tty layer. ;-)
>
> Holy straw man argument Batman!
>
> But the focus is still on
> No, this goes beyond PPC/OF. The real issue is that it is no longer a
> safe assumption that pdata will be a static data structure in platform
> code. The number of possible data sources is going to get larger, not
> smaller. OF is just one. UEFI is another. Translating that data
> into pdat
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Anton Vorontsov
wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 08:53:46AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> [...]
>> Please don't. It is such a small amount of code,
>
> It's *always* a small amound of code, at a start. Then we get
> floppy disk drivers and the tty layer. ;-)
Holy s
12 matches
Mail list logo
