On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Mark Brown
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:42:58AM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:19 AM, Mark Brown
>
>> > This and many of your other regulators have voltage ranges specified but
>> > no consumers which doesn't make sense. It looks awf
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:42:58AM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:19 AM, Mark Brown
> > This and many of your other regulators have voltage ranges specified but
> > no consumers which doesn't make sense. It looks awfully like you've
> > just typed in the maximum range suppor
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:19 AM, Mark Brown
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 04:46:18PM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
>
> Yay for indentation! It'd be good to rewrite your DT so you could cut
> down on that, at the minute it's not good for legibility.
>
>> +
By the way just as an example, a board with the following could be
configured on i.MX53 without touching any IOMUX settings at all
besides DDR (which would get done at boot rom time through the dcd);
* Keypad (KPP)
* 24-bit Parallel display on IPU DI0
* GPIO6&7 pins 22 through 31, GPIO4 10 through
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 09:26:36AM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
> If you really think it's necessary then fine, we'll do it.
>
Yes, please do.
--
Regards,
Shawn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More maj
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Shawn Guo wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 08:36:02AM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
>> Requiring it breaks the entire concept of the device tree to describe running
>> hardware. It is not a configuration script. pinctrl should be optional
>> - built in
>> always, but n
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 08:36:02AM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
> Requiring it breaks the entire concept of the device tree to describe running
> hardware. It is not a configuration script. pinctrl should be optional
> - built in
> always, but not necessary to turn a board on if it's already configure
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Shawn Guo wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 09:29:39AM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
>> The reason the new kernel depends on the new U-Boot is we're trying to
>> do all pinmux configuration in U-Boot (and we do in-house, and it
>> works). No pinctrl stuff in the kernel o
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 09:29:39AM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
> The reason the new kernel depends on the new U-Boot is we're trying to
> do all pinmux configuration in U-Boot (and we do in-house, and it
> works). No pinctrl stuff in the kernel or device tree is required at
> this point. The Old Kern
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> Matt,
>
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Matt Sealey wrote:
>
> ...
>> or any setup at all for this. What's stopping this right now is you
>> need a new U-Boot which we
>> didn't release or mainline because we are still testing it (old U-Bo
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 08:40:36AM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
> The reason they're set like that is legacy - that's how they're set up
> in a kernel
> (pre-DT) that we know works. Most of those ranges are directly from the
> Babbage
> reference and stay like that in the Babbage DT too - so there's
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:19 AM, Mark Brown
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 04:46:18PM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
>
> Yay for indentation! It'd be good to rewrite your DT so you could cut
> down on that, at the minute it's not good for legibility.
>
>> +
On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 04:46:18PM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
Yay for indentation! It'd be good to rewrite your DT so you could cut
down on that, at the minute it's not good for legibility.
> + sw1_reg: sw1 {
> +
Matt,
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Matt Sealey wrote:
...
> or any setup at all for this. What's stopping this right now is you
> need a new U-Boot which we
> didn't release or mainline because we are still testing it (old U-Boot
> shipped on the boards
> cannot boot device tree anyway). Whil
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Shawn Guo wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 04:46:18PM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
>> This device tree only supports the final retail board ("TO3").
>>
>> It is currently feature equivalent to the MX51 Babbage device tree. The
>> following features have been tested an
On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 04:46:18PM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
> This device tree only supports the final retail board ("TO3").
>
> It is currently feature equivalent to the MX51 Babbage device tree. The
> following features have been tested and work as well as can be expected:
>
> * Serial port
>
This device tree only supports the final retail board ("TO3").
It is currently feature equivalent to the MX51 Babbage device tree. The
following features have been tested and work as well as can be expected:
* Serial port
* SD card support
* I2C bus
* SGTL5000 audio support via the internal speak
17 matches
Mail list logo
