On Monday, October 20, 2014 04:05:01 PM Grant Likely wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 14:05:59 +0200
> , "Rafael J. Wysocki"
> wrote:
> > From: Mika Westerberg
> >
> > We have lots of existing Device Tree enabled drivers and allocating
> > separate _HID for each is not feasible. Instead we
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 14:05:59 +0200
, "Rafael J. Wysocki"
wrote:
> From: Mika Westerberg
>
> We have lots of existing Device Tree enabled drivers and allocating
> separate _HID for each is not feasible. Instead we allocate special _HID
> "PRP0001" that means that the match should be done using
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 14:05:59 +0200
, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@rjwysocki.net
wrote:
From: Mika Westerberg mika.westerb...@linux.intel.com
We have lots of existing Device Tree enabled drivers and allocating
separate _HID for each is not feasible. Instead we allocate special _HID
PRP0001 that
On Monday, October 20, 2014 04:05:01 PM Grant Likely wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 14:05:59 +0200
, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@rjwysocki.net
wrote:
From: Mika Westerberg mika.westerb...@linux.intel.com
We have lots of existing Device Tree enabled drivers and allocating
separate _HID for each
From: Mika Westerberg
We have lots of existing Device Tree enabled drivers and allocating
separate _HID for each is not feasible. Instead we allocate special _HID
"PRP0001" that means that the match should be done using Device Tree
compatible property using driver's .of_match_table instead if
From: Mika Westerberg mika.westerb...@linux.intel.com
We have lots of existing Device Tree enabled drivers and allocating
separate _HID for each is not feasible. Instead we allocate special _HID
PRP0001 that means that the match should be done using Device Tree
compatible property using driver's
6 matches
Mail list logo