On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 8:17 PM Saravana Kannan wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 1:40 AM Andy Shevchenko
> wrote:
> > On Friday, January 22, 2021, Saravana Kannan wrote:
...
> >> Case 1: The driver for "foo" populates struct device for these gpio*
the struct
> >> nodes and then probes them
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 1:40 AM Andy Shevchenko
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, January 22, 2021, Saravana Kannan wrote:
>>
>> There are multiple instances of GPIO device tree nodes of the form:
>>
>> foo {
>> compatible = "acme,foo";
>> ...
>>
>> gpio0: gpio0@ {
>>
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 8:43 PM Saravana Kannan wrote:
> > They may still have "ports" or "banks" of GPIO that make sense
> > to separate into logical nodes and this is most often why they
> > do this.
> >
> > I bet there are some other oddities as well.
>
> Ah, thanks for the context. But
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 5:01 AM Linus Walleij wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 2:14 AM Saravana Kannan wrote:
>
> > There are multiple instances of GPIO devictree nodes of the form:
> >
> > foo {
> > compatible = "acme,foo";
> > ...
> >
> > gpio0: gpio0@ {
> >
On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 2:14 AM Saravana Kannan wrote:
> There are multiple instances of GPIO devictree nodes of the form:
>
> foo {
> compatible = "acme,foo";
> ...
>
> gpio0: gpio0@ {
> compatible = "acme,bar";
> ...
>
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 03:58:29PM +, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 2021-01-20 15:48, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 03:39:30PM +, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>
> > > Anyway, I said what I had to say. If platforms break with this
> > > change, I'll expect it to be disabled in
On 2021-01-20 15:48, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 03:39:30PM +, Marc Zyngier wrote:
Anyway, I said what I had to say. If platforms break with this
change, I'll expect it to be disabled in 5.12.
I'm thinking we can not change the default and will probably revert
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 03:39:30PM +, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 2021-01-18 20:38, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 4:02 AM Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Saravana,
> > >
> > > Thanks for posting this, much appreciated.
> > >
> > > On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 01:14:11 +,
>
On 2021-01-18 20:38, Saravana Kannan wrote:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 4:02 AM Marc Zyngier wrote:
Hi Saravana,
Thanks for posting this, much appreciated.
On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 01:14:11 +,
Saravana Kannan wrote:
>
> There are multiple instances of GPIO devictree nodes of the form:
>
> foo {
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 4:02 AM Marc Zyngier wrote:
>
> Hi Saravana,
>
> Thanks for posting this, much appreciated.
>
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 01:14:11 +,
> Saravana Kannan wrote:
> >
> > There are multiple instances of GPIO devictree nodes of the form:
> >
> > foo {
> > compatible =
Hi Saravana,
Thanks for posting this, much appreciated.
On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 01:14:11 +,
Saravana Kannan wrote:
>
> There are multiple instances of GPIO devictree nodes of the form:
>
> foo {
> compatible = "acme,foo";
> ...
>
> gpio0: gpio0@ {
>
On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 3:15 AM Saravana Kannan wrote:
> v1 -> v2:
> - Fixed up compilation errors that were introduced accidentally
> - Fixed a missing put_device()
See my comments as per v1 and address.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
There are multiple instances of GPIO devictree nodes of the form:
foo {
compatible = "acme,foo";
...
gpio0: gpio0@ {
compatible = "acme,bar";
...
gpio-controller;
};
gpio1: gpio1@ {
13 matches
Mail list logo
