On 26 October 2015 at 09:16, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Tomeu Vizoso
> wrote:
>> Walks the OF tree up and finds the closest ancestor that has a struct
>> device associated with it, probing it if isn't bound to a driver yet.
>>
>> The above should ensure that the
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Tomeu Vizoso
wrote:
> Walks the OF tree up and finds the closest ancestor that has a struct
> device associated with it, probing it if isn't bound to a driver yet.
>
> The above should ensure that the dependency represented by the passed OF
> node is available, bec
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 03:48:44AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 1:13 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Should we try to schedule an ad-hoc session today (Monday) for those of
> > us who are here to talk this over?
> I won't mind doing that, what about after the Linus+Dirk se
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 1:13 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 03:09:06PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
>
>> Let's get agreement on the flow and structure and how to address other
>> issues like suspend, then we can worry about whether this needs to be
>> abstracted from subsystems. We c
On October 26, 2015 9:13:01 AM GMT+09:00, Mark Brown wrote:
>On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 03:09:06PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
>
>> Let's get agreement on the flow and structure and how to address
>other
>> issues like suspend, then we can worry about whether this needs to be
>> abstracted from subsyst
On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 03:09:06PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> Let's get agreement on the flow and structure and how to address other
> issues like suspend, then we can worry about whether this needs to be
> abstracted from subsystems. We can discuss more this week at KS.
Should we try to schedul
On 10/24/2015 08:55 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, October 22, 2015 03:03:37 PM Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>> On 22 October 2015 at 03:06, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Monday, September 21, 2015 04:02:44 PM Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
Walks the OF tree up and finds the closest ancestor that
On Friday, October 23, 2015 08:54:19 AM Mark Brown wrote:
>
> --7cm2iqirTL37Ot+N
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Disposition: inline
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 03:03:37PM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> > On 22 October 2015 at 03:06, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > > Same qu
On Thursday, October 22, 2015 03:03:37 PM Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> On 22 October 2015 at 03:06, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, September 21, 2015 04:02:44 PM Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> >> Walks the OF tree up and finds the closest ancestor that has a struct
> >> device associated with it, probing
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 03:03:37PM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> On 22 October 2015 at 03:06, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Same question as from Greg: How does a subsystem know whether or not to use
> > this function?
> Maybe I don't understand the comment, but as the commit message says,
> subsy
On 22 October 2015 at 03:06, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, September 21, 2015 04:02:44 PM Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>> Walks the OF tree up and finds the closest ancestor that has a struct
>> device associated with it, probing it if isn't bound to a driver yet.
>>
>> The above should ensure that
On Monday, September 21, 2015 04:02:44 PM Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> Walks the OF tree up and finds the closest ancestor that has a struct
> device associated with it, probing it if isn't bound to a driver yet.
>
> The above should ensure that the dependency represented by the passed OF
> node is avail
Walks the OF tree up and finds the closest ancestor that has a struct
device associated with it, probing it if isn't bound to a driver yet.
The above should ensure that the dependency represented by the passed OF
node is available, because probing a device should cause its descendants
to be probed
13 matches
Mail list logo
