On 12/05/17 12:07, Alan Tull wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 7:14 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> Hi Alan,
>>
>> In the RFC thread "of: Add whitelist", I did not understand the use case and
>> asked you some questions (30 Nov 2017 07:46:36 -0500), that you seem to have
>> overlooked (or my mail server
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 7:14 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
> Hi Alan,
>
> In the RFC thread "of: Add whitelist", I did not understand the use case and
> asked you some questions (30 Nov 2017 07:46:36 -0500), that you seem to have
> overlooked (or my mail server failed to deliver your answer to me). Can
Hi Alan,
In the RFC thread "of: Add whitelist", I did not understand the use case and
asked you some questions (30 Nov 2017 07:46:36 -0500), that you seem to have
overlooked (or my mail server failed to deliver your answer to me). Can you
please answer that question so I can better understand thi
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 11:18:49AM -0800, Moritz Fischer wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 01:13:55PM -0600, Alan Tull wrote:
> > Restrict which nodes are valid targets for a DT overlay.
> >
> > Add a flag bit to struct device_node allowing nodes to be marked as
> > valid target for overlays.
> >
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 01:13:55PM -0600, Alan Tull wrote:
> Restrict which nodes are valid targets for a DT overlay.
>
> Add a flag bit to struct device_node allowing nodes to be marked as
> valid target for overlays.
>
> A driver that is always intended to handle DT overlays can
> enable overla
Restrict which nodes are valid targets for a DT overlay.
Add a flag bit to struct device_node allowing nodes to be marked as
valid target for overlays.
A driver that is always intended to handle DT overlays can
enable overlays by calling a function for its DT node.
For individual nodes that need
6 matches
Mail list logo
