On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 1:58 PM Martin Kaiser wrote:
>
> Thus wrote Saravana Kannan (sarava...@google.com):
>
> > > With modules disabled, the kernel boots but probe fails for some
> > > (non-mainline) drivers in my tree.
>
> > Thanks Martin!
>
> > > All of those drivers have a gpio in
> > > their
Thus wrote Geert Uytterhoeven (ge...@linux-m68k.org):
> > The property you are using is not a standard GPIO binding (-gpios,
> > gpio, gpios) and I'm not surprised it's not working. The gpio1 is
> > probably getting probe deferred and ends up running after "my_driver".
> So my_driver doesn't
Thus wrote Saravana Kannan (sarava...@google.com):
> > With modules disabled, the kernel boots but probe fails for some
> > (non-mainline) drivers in my tree.
> Thanks Martin!
> > All of those drivers have a gpio in
> > their device-tree node, such as
> > my_driver {
> >gpio_test1 = < 0
Hi Saravana,
On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 9:11 AM Saravana Kannan wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 11:55 PM Geert Uytterhoeven
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 11:44 PM Saravana Kannan
> > wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 1:22 PM Martin Kaiser wrote:
> > > > Thus wrote Saravana Kannan
On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 11:55 PM Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 11:44 PM Saravana Kannan wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 1:22 PM Martin Kaiser wrote:
> > > Thus wrote Saravana Kannan (sarava...@google.com):
> > > All of those drivers have a gpio in
> > > their device-tree
On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 11:44 PM Saravana Kannan wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 1:22 PM Martin Kaiser wrote:
> > Thus wrote Saravana Kannan (sarava...@google.com):
> > All of those drivers have a gpio in
> > their device-tree node, such as
> >
> > my_driver {
> >gpio_test1 = < 0 0>;
> >
On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 1:22 PM Martin Kaiser wrote:
>
> Hi Saravana,
>
> Thus wrote Saravana Kannan (sarava...@google.com):
>
> > Martin,
>
> > If you tested this series, can you please give a Tested-by?
>
> I tested this v2 series on top of next-20210202 (without the fsl,avic
> patch).
>
> If
Hi Saravana,
Thus wrote Saravana Kannan (sarava...@google.com):
> Martin,
> If you tested this series, can you please give a Tested-by?
I tested this v2 series on top of next-20210202 (without the fsl,avic
patch).
If modules are enabled, the kernel doesn't boot on my imx25 board. This
is
On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 9:41 AM Rob Herring wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 10:52 AM wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Saravana,
> >
> > On 2/2/21 6:33 AM, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> > > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know
> > > the content is safe
> > >
> > > This patch
On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 10:52 AM wrote:
>
> Hi, Saravana,
>
> On 2/2/21 6:33 AM, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the
> > content is safe
> >
> > This patch series solves two general issues with fw_devlink=on
> >
> > Patch 1/3 and
Hi, Saravana,
On 2/2/21 6:33 AM, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the
> content is safe
>
> This patch series solves two general issues with fw_devlink=on
>
> Patch 1/3 and 3/3 addresses the issue of firmware nodes that look like
>
This patch series solves two general issues with fw_devlink=on
Patch 1/3 and 3/3 addresses the issue of firmware nodes that look like
they'll have struct devices created for them, but will never actually
have struct devices added for them. For example, DT nodes with a
compatible property that
12 matches
Mail list logo
