On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> Author: Lee Jones
> Date: Mon Aug 6 11:09:57 2012 +0100
>
> i2c: nomadik: Add Device Tree support to the Nomadik I2C driver
>
> Here we apply the bindings required for successful Device Tree
> probing of the i2c-nomadik driver.
>
>
Author: Lee Jones
Date: Mon Aug 6 11:09:57 2012 +0100
i2c: nomadik: Add Device Tree support to the Nomadik I2C driver
Here we apply the bindings required for successful Device Tree
probing of the i2c-nomadik driver.
Cc: linux-...@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Lee
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 07:27:10PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>
>> > In this particular case, we don't have a single board file providing a
>> > struct nmk_i2c_controller definition for pl
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 07:27:10PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> > In this particular case, we don't have a single board file providing a
> > struct nmk_i2c_controller definition for platform data, so the best way
> > to handle this IMHO is
> Alessandro Rubini is actively working on bridging this (and
> other amba_device primecells) to PCI, that is the reason why it
> was recently converted to an amba_device.
Yes, I've been inactive for a while but I'm on it right now.
> How is he then supposed to get the proper parameters into the
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> In this particular case, we don't have a single board file providing a
> struct nmk_i2c_controller definition for platform data, so the best way
> to handle this IMHO is to remove the header file with the platform
> data definition, and just
On Monday 03 September 2012, Lee Jones wrote:
> > But if you are handling both, then I agree that platform_data should
> > override DT.
>
> I do agree with this, but I haven't stumbled over such a use-case yet.
> I have only provided; clock names, DMA settings and call-back information
> via AUX_D
On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 10:09:34AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On 09/03/2012 09:35 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >> On 09/03/2012 05:58 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> >>>
> No, this is w
On 09/03/2012 09:35 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 09/03/2012 05:58 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>
No, this is wrong. Platform data should not override DT.
If DT is enabled an
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 09/03/2012 05:58 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>
>>> No, this is wrong. Platform data should not override DT.
>>>
>>> If DT is enabled and passed, it should have highest priority.
>
> No, th
On 09/03/2012 05:58 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>
>> No, this is wrong. Platform data should not override DT.
>>
>> If DT is enabled and passed, it should have highest priority.
No, that's wrong. If platform data is specified, it overrides DT, so
t
On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 03:19:13PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>
> > When booting DT booting take a different path and no platform data
> > is passed. We can't boot DT AND register devices with platform data
> > or else we will double probe every
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> When booting DT booting take a different path and no platform data
> is passed. We can't boot DT AND register devices with platform data
> or else we will double probe every device. The only way to pass
> pdata when booting with DT is with AUX_DA
On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 01:58:04PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>
> > No, this is wrong. Platform data should not override DT.
> >
> > If DT is enabled and passed, it should have highest priority.
>
> Oh is that so.
:)
> Rob: do we have a clear
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> No, this is wrong. Platform data should not override DT.
>
> If DT is enabled and passed, it should have highest priority.
Oh is that so.
Rob: do we have a clear consensus on this? Then we should document
it in Documentation/devicetree/usage-mo
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
(...)
> + if (np) {
> + if (!pdata) {
> + pdata = devm_kzalloc(&adev->dev, sizeof(*pdata),
> GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!pdata) {
> + ret = -ENOMEM;
> +
Author: Lee Jones
Date: Mon Aug 6 11:09:57 2012 +0100
i2c: nomadik: Add Device Tree support to the Nomadik I2C driver
Here we apply the bindings required for successful Device Tree
probing of the i2c-nomadik driver.
Cc: linux-...@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Lee
On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 11:44:48AM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 11:22:28AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> >
> > (...)
> > > static int nmk_i2c_probe(struct amba_device *adev, const struct amba_id
> > > *id)
> > > {
>
On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 11:22:28AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>
> (...)
> > static int nmk_i2c_probe(struct amba_device *adev, const struct amba_id
> > *id)
> > {
> > int ret = 0;
> > struct nmk_i2c_controller *pdata = adev->
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
(...)
> static int nmk_i2c_probe(struct amba_device *adev, const struct amba_id *id)
> {
> int ret = 0;
> struct nmk_i2c_controller *pdata = adev->dev.platform_data;
> + struct device_node *np = adev->dev.of_node;
>
Hopefully this is more to your liking:
Author: Lee Jones
Date: Mon Aug 6 11:09:57 2012 +0100
i2c: nomadik: Add Device Tree support to the Nomadik I2C driver
Here we apply the bindings required for successful Device Tree
probing of the i2c-nomadik driver.
Cc: linux-...
> Is there some dependency other than updating the dts files? If not, I'd
> like to pick up the patch via I2C.
There's no other dependency. Feel free to take them into your tree.
> > +static void nmk_i2c_of_probe(struct device_node *np,
> > + struct nmk_i2c_controller *pdata)
>
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 04:01:27PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> Here we apply the bindings required for successful Device Tree
> probing of the i2c-nomadik driver.
>
> Cc: linux-...@vger.kernel.org
> Acked-by: srinidhi kasagar
Two acks? I'd think this cannot work for multiple reasons.
BTW, patch 2
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 04:42:49PM -0700, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
>
> > Here we apply the bindings required for successful Device Tree
> > probing of the i2c-nomadik driver.
> >
> > Cc: linux-...@vger.kernel.org
> > Acked-by: srinidhi kasagar
> >
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> Here we apply the bindings required for successful Device Tree
> probing of the i2c-nomadik driver.
>
> Cc: linux-...@vger.kernel.org
> Acked-by: srinidhi kasagar
> Signed-off-by: Lee Jones
Acked-by: Linus Walleij
Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
To
Here we apply the bindings required for successful Device Tree
probing of the i2c-nomadik driver.
Cc: linux-...@vger.kernel.org
Acked-by: srinidhi kasagar
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones
---
drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-nomadik.c | 28
1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)
diff --
26 matches
Mail list logo
