On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 2:53 PM Greg Ungerer wrote:
> On 23/7/19 12:44 am, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 4:27 PM Greg Ungerer wrote:
> >> On 4/5/19 3:06 am, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >>> On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 08:16:05AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> With IXP4xx, Gemini and
Hi Arnd,
On 23/7/19 12:44 am, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 4:27 PM Greg Ungerer wrote:
On 4/5/19 3:06 am, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 08:16:05AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 8:02 AM Greg Ungerer wrote:
Ultimately though I am left
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 7:44 AM Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 4:27 PM Greg Ungerer wrote:
> > On 4/5/19 3:06 am, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 08:16:05AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > >> On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 8:02 AM Greg Ungerer wrote:
> > >>>
On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 4:27 PM Greg Ungerer wrote:
> On 4/5/19 3:06 am, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 08:16:05AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> >> On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 8:02 AM Greg Ungerer wrote:
> >>> Ultimately though I am left wondering if the ks8695 support in the
> >>>
On 4/5/19 3:06 am, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 08:16:05AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 8:02 AM Greg Ungerer wrote:
I dug out some old ks8695 based hardware to try this out.
I had a lot of trouble getting anything modern working on it.
In the end I
On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 08:16:05AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 8:02 AM Greg Ungerer wrote:
>
> > I dug out some old ks8695 based hardware to try this out.
> > I had a lot of trouble getting anything modern working on it.
> > In the end I still don't have a reliable test
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 8:02 AM Greg Ungerer wrote:
> I dug out some old ks8695 based hardware to try this out.
> I had a lot of trouble getting anything modern working on it.
> In the end I still don't have a reliable test bed to test this properly.
What is usually used by old ARMv4 systems is
Hi Arnd,
On 16/4/19 6:24 am, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
drivers should not rely on machine specific headers but
get their information from the platform device.
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann
I dug out some old ks8695 based hardware to try this out.
I had a lot of trouble getting anything modern
Hi Arnd,
On 16/4/19 6:24 am, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
drivers should not rely on machine specific headers but
get their information from the platform device.
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann
I like the whole series, thanks for doing this.
I haven't looked at the KS8695 in a long time now. I am not
On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 10:54 PM Guenter Roeck wrote:
>
> >
> > config KS8695_WATCHDOG
> > tristate "KS8695 watchdog"
> > - depends on ARCH_KS8695
> > + depends on ARCH_KS8695 || COMPILE_TEST
>
> Is __raw_readl / __raw_writel really available for all architectures /
> platforms ?
On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 10:24:13PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> drivers should not rely on machine specific headers but
> get their information from the platform device.
>
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann
> ---
> arch/arm/mach-ks8695/devices.c | 13 -
> drivers/watchdog/Kconfig
drivers should not rely on machine specific headers but
get their information from the platform device.
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann
---
arch/arm/mach-ks8695/devices.c | 13 -
drivers/watchdog/Kconfig | 2 +-
drivers/watchdog/ks8695_wdt.c | 30 +-
12 matches
Mail list logo
