Hello Srini,
On 16.11.20 18:21, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
>
>
> On 16/11/2020 17:04, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
To allow for co-existence of NVMEM cells and other subnodes, would
following patch be
acceptable to you and Srini?
>>> Gentle ping. Would the patch below be acceptable?
>>
On 16/11/2020 17:04, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
To allow for co-existence of NVMEM cells and other subnodes, would following
patch be
acceptable to you and Srini?
Gentle ping. Would the patch below be acceptable?
Did you have time to look at this?
I did reply back to this thread way back in
Hello Rob,
Hello Srini,
On 02.11.20 16:23, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
>>> I think instead, nvmem cells should be contained within a partition.
>>> The partition should then have a compatible to indicate it contains
>>> nvmem cells.
>>
>> I thought I had understood what needs to be done, but now that I
Hello Rob,
Hello Srini,
On 10/12/20 5:36 PM, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
> On 5/12/20 4:18 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
[snip]
>> I think instead, nvmem cells should be contained within a partition.
>> The partition should then have a compatible to indicate it contains
>> nvmem cells.
>
> I thought I had
Hello Rob,
Hello Srini,
On 5/12/20 4:18 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 01:18:25PM +0200, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
>> The nvmem cell binding applies to all objects which match "^.*@[0-9a-f]+$",
>> without taking a compatible into account. This precludes extension of e.g.
>> eeprom
On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 01:18:25PM +0200, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
> The nvmem cell binding applies to all objects which match "^.*@[0-9a-f]+$",
> without taking a compatible into account. This precludes extension of e.g.
> eeprom nodes by any child nodes other than nvmem. Consider following example:
>
The nvmem cell binding applies to all objects which match "^.*@[0-9a-f]+$",
without taking a compatible into account. This precludes extension of e.g.
eeprom nodes by any child nodes other than nvmem. Consider following example:
eeprom@0 {
reg = <0 64>;
7 matches
Mail list logo
