On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 23:27:18 +0100, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
wrote:
> On 16:23 Fri 09 Nov , Stephen Warren wrote:
> > On 11/09/2012 09:28 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> > However, I think the process for an end-user needs to be as simple as
> > "drop this .dts/.dtb file into some standard
On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 23:27:18 +0100, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
plagn...@jcrosoft.com wrote:
On 16:23 Fri 09 Nov , Stephen Warren wrote:
On 11/09/2012 09:28 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
However, I think the process for an end-user needs to be as simple as
drop this .dts/.dtb file into
On 16:23 Fri 09 Nov , Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 11/09/2012 09:28 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Stephen Warren
> > wrote:
> ...
> >> I do rather suspect this use-case is quite common. NVIDIA certainly has
> >> a bunch of development boards with pluggable
> >>
On 16:23 Fri 09 Nov , Stephen Warren wrote:
On 11/09/2012 09:28 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org
wrote:
...
I do rather suspect this use-case is quite common. NVIDIA certainly has
a bunch of development boards with
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 03:38:18PM +0200, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> Hi Grant,
>
> On Nov 13, 2012, at 2:24 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
[snip]
> My intention wasn't never to make overlays overly portable. My intention
> was to make them in a way
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 03:38:18PM +0200, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
Hi Grant,
On Nov 13, 2012, at 2:24 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
[snip]
My intention wasn't never to make overlays overly portable. My intention
was to make them in a way that
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 10:09:28AM +0200, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On Nov 13, 2012, at 9:25 AM, David Gibson wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 09:52:32AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >> On 11/12/2012 05:10 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> > [snip]
> >>> Oh yes. In fact if one
Hi Mitch,
On Nov 13, 2012, at 9:09 PM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
> On 11/13/2012 8:29 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 11/13/2012 11:10 AM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
>>> It seems to me that this capebus discussion is missing an important
>>> point. The name capebus suggests that it is a bus, so there
On 11/13/2012 8:29 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 11/13/2012 11:10 AM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
>> It seems to me that this capebus discussion is missing an important
>> point. The name capebus suggests that it is a bus, so there should be a
>> parent node to represent that bus. It should have a
On 11/13/2012 11:10 AM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
> It seems to me that this capebus discussion is missing an important
> point. The name capebus suggests that it is a bus, so there should be a
> parent node to represent that bus. It should have a driver whose API
> implements all of the
It seems to me that this capebus discussion is missing an important
point. The name capebus suggests that it is a bus, so there should be a
parent node to represent that bus. It should have a driver whose API
implements all of the system-interface functions a cape needs.
If you look at the way
On 11/13/2012 01:09 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> On Nov 13, 2012, at 9:25 AM, David Gibson wrote:
...
>> 1) We annotate the base tree with some extra label information for
>> nodes which overlays are likely to want to reference by phandle. e.g.
>>
>> beaglebone_pic:
On 11/13/2012 12:25 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 09:52:32AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 11/12/2012 05:10 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> [snip]
>>> Oh yes. In fact if one was to use a single kernel image for beagleboard
>>> and beaglebone, for the cape to work for both,
Hi Grant,
On Nov 13, 2012, at 2:24 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
> wrote:
>> On Nov 13, 2012, at 9:25 AM, David Gibson wrote:
>> Not good to rely on userspace kicking off dtc and compiling from source.
>> Some capes/expansion boards might have your
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
wrote:
> On Nov 13, 2012, at 9:25 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> Not good to rely on userspace kicking off dtc and compiling from source.
> Some capes/expansion boards might have your root fs device, for example
> there is an eMMC cape coming up,
Hi David,
On Nov 13, 2012, at 9:25 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 09:52:32AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 11/12/2012 05:10 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> [snip]
>>> Oh yes. In fact if one was to use a single kernel image for beagleboard
>>> and beaglebone, for the cape
Hi David,
On Nov 13, 2012, at 9:25 AM, David Gibson wrote:
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 09:52:32AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 11/12/2012 05:10 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
[snip]
Oh yes. In fact if one was to use a single kernel image for beagleboard
and beaglebone, for the cape to work for
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
pa...@antoniou-consulting.com wrote:
On Nov 13, 2012, at 9:25 AM, David Gibson wrote:
Not good to rely on userspace kicking off dtc and compiling from source.
Some capes/expansion boards might have your root fs device, for example
there is an
Hi Grant,
On Nov 13, 2012, at 2:24 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
pa...@antoniou-consulting.com wrote:
On Nov 13, 2012, at 9:25 AM, David Gibson wrote:
Not good to rely on userspace kicking off dtc and compiling from source.
Some capes/expansion
On 11/13/2012 12:25 AM, David Gibson wrote:
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 09:52:32AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 11/12/2012 05:10 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
[snip]
Oh yes. In fact if one was to use a single kernel image for beagleboard
and beaglebone, for the cape to work for both, it is
On 11/13/2012 01:09 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
On Nov 13, 2012, at 9:25 AM, David Gibson wrote:
...
1) We annotate the base tree with some extra label information for
nodes which overlays are likely to want to reference by phandle. e.g.
beaglebone_pic: interrupt-controller@X {
It seems to me that this capebus discussion is missing an important
point. The name capebus suggests that it is a bus, so there should be a
parent node to represent that bus. It should have a driver whose API
implements all of the system-interface functions a cape needs.
If you look at the way
On 11/13/2012 11:10 AM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
It seems to me that this capebus discussion is missing an important
point. The name capebus suggests that it is a bus, so there should be a
parent node to represent that bus. It should have a driver whose API
implements all of the system-interface
On 11/13/2012 8:29 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 11/13/2012 11:10 AM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
It seems to me that this capebus discussion is missing an important
point. The name capebus suggests that it is a bus, so there should be a
parent node to represent that bus. It should have a driver
Hi Mitch,
On Nov 13, 2012, at 9:09 PM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
On 11/13/2012 8:29 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 11/13/2012 11:10 AM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
It seems to me that this capebus discussion is missing an important
point. The name capebus suggests that it is a bus, so there should be a
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 10:09:28AM +0200, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
Hi David,
On Nov 13, 2012, at 9:25 AM, David Gibson wrote:
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 09:52:32AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 11/12/2012 05:10 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
[snip]
Oh yes. In fact if one was to use a
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:22:07PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 11/12/2012 06:05 PM, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 09:42:37PM +, Grant Likely wrote:
> ...
> > 2) graft bundle
> >
> > The base tree has something like this:
> >
> > ...
> > i2c@XXX {
> >
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 09:52:32AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 11/12/2012 05:10 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
[snip]
> > Oh yes. In fact if one was to use a single kernel image for beagleboard
> > and beaglebone, for the cape to work for both, it is required for it's
> > dtb to be compatible.
On 11/12/2012 06:05 PM, David Gibson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 09:42:37PM +, Grant Likely wrote:
...
> 2) graft bundle
>
> The base tree has something like this:
>
> ...
> i2c@XXX {
> ...
> cape-socket {
> compatible =
Hi Grant,
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>> (2)
>> Also this discussed a while back but at some point is going to brought
>> up again- loading of dt fragment directly from EEPROM and merging at
>> run time. If we were to implement this in kernel, we would have to add
>>
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 09:36:26PM -0600, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
> Hi Pantelis,
>
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 2:13 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
> wrote:
>
> Option C: U-Boot loads both the base and overlay FDT files, merges them,
> and passes the resolved tree to the kernel.
>
> >>>
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 09:42:37PM +, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 2:26 AM, David Gibson
> wrote:
> > (3) Resolving phandle references from the subtree to the main tree.
> >
> > So, I think this can actually be avoided, at least in cases where what
> > physical connections are
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 04:40:15PM +0100, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> Hi David,
[snip]
> > I think graft is basically a safer operation, particular if we're
> > doing this at runtime with userspace passing in these fdt fragments.
> > In fact I'd go so far as to say if you really need the full
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 09:08:14PM +, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 2:26 AM, David Gibson
> wrote:
> >> Summary points:
> >> - Create an FDT overlay data format and usage model
> >> - SHALL reliable resolve or validate of phandles between base and
> >> overlay trees
> >
>
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
wrote:
> Hi Grant,
>
> Sorry for the late comments, travelling...
>
> On Nov 9, 2012, at 6:28 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Stephen Warren
>> wrote:
>>> On 11/05/2012 01:40 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
Hey folks,
Hi Stephen,
On Nov 12, 2012, at 7:29 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 11/12/2012 10:19 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>> Hi Stephen,
>>
>> On Nov 12, 2012, at 7:10 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/12/2012 10:00 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On Nov 12, 2012, at 6:49
On 11/12/2012 10:19 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On Nov 12, 2012, at 7:10 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>
>> On 11/12/2012 10:00 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>>> Hi Stephen,
>>>
>>> On Nov 12, 2012, at 6:49 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>
On 11/12/2012 04:23 AM, Pantelis
Hi Stephen,
On Nov 12, 2012, at 7:10 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 11/12/2012 10:00 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>> Hi Stephen,
>>
>> On Nov 12, 2012, at 6:49 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/12/2012 04:23 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
Hi Grant,
Sorry for the late
On 11/12/2012 10:00 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On Nov 12, 2012, at 6:49 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>
>> On 11/12/2012 04:23 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>>> Hi Grant,
>>>
>>> Sorry for the late comments, travelling...
>>>
>>> On Nov 9, 2012, at 6:28 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>>
Hi Stephen,
On Nov 12, 2012, at 6:49 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 11/12/2012 04:23 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>> Hi Grant,
>>
>> Sorry for the late comments, travelling...
>>
>> On Nov 9, 2012, at 6:28 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> ...
>>> *with the caveat that not all types of changes are a
On 11/12/2012 05:50 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> Hi Rob.
>
> On Nov 11, 2012, at 10:47 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
>
>> On 11/09/2012 10:28:59 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Stephen Warren
>>> wrote:
On 11/05/2012 01:40 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>>>
On 11/12/2012 05:10 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On Nov 10, 2012, at 1:23 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>
>> On 11/09/2012 09:28 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Stephen Warren
>>> wrote:
>> ...
I do rather suspect this use-case is quite common.
On 11/12/2012 04:23 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> Hi Grant,
>
> Sorry for the late comments, travelling...
>
> On Nov 9, 2012, at 6:28 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
...
>> *with the caveat that not all types of changes are a good idea and we
>> may disallow. For example, is changing properties in
On 11/09/2012 09:28 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 11/05/2012 01:40 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>>> Hey folks,
>>>
>>> As promised, here is my early draft to try and capture what device
>>> tree overlays need to do and how to get there. Comments
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
wrote:
> Hi Grant,
>
> On Nov 9, 2012, at 10:33 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
>> wrote:
>>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
Maybe some extra version match table can just
Hi Rob.
On Nov 11, 2012, at 10:47 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 11/09/2012 10:28:59 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Stephen Warren
>> wrote:
>> > On 11/05/2012 01:40 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>> I'm not actually opposed to it, but it needs to be done in an
Hi Joel,
Again, sorry for the late reply due to travel.
On Nov 10, 2012, at 5:36 AM, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
> Hi Pantelis,
>
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 2:13 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
> wrote:
>
> Option C: U-Boot loads both the base and overlay FDT files, merges them,
> and passes
Hi Stephen,
On Nov 10, 2012, at 1:23 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 11/09/2012 09:28 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Stephen Warren
>> wrote:
> ...
>>> I do rather suspect this use-case is quite common. NVIDIA certainly has
>>> a bunch of development boards with
Hi Stephen,
On Nov 10, 2012, at 12:57 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 11/08/2012 07:26 PM, David Gibson wrote:
> ...
>> I also think graft will handle most of your use cases, although as I
>> said I don't fully understand the implications of some of them, so I
>> could be wrong. So, the actual
Hi Grant,
On Nov 9, 2012, at 11:22 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 5:32 AM, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
>> Hi Pantelis,
>>
>> I hope I'm not too late to reply as I'm traveling.
>>
>> On Nov 6, 2012, at 5:30 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
Joanne has purchased
Hi Grant,
On Nov 9, 2012, at 10:33 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
> wrote:
>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
>>> Maybe some extra version match table can just be passed during the board
>>> machine_init
>>>
>>>
Hi Grant,
On Nov 9, 2012, at 7:02 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 12:54 AM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
>> On 11/6/2012 12:37 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> This proposal is very oriented at an overlay-based approach. I'm not
>>> totally convinced that a pure overlay approach (as in
Hi Grant,
Sorry for the late comments, travelling...
On Nov 9, 2012, at 6:28 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 11/05/2012 01:40 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>>> Hey folks,
>>>
>>> As promised, here is my early draft to try and capture what
Op 5 nov. 2012, om 21:40 heeft Grant Likely het
volgende geschreven:
> Hey folks,
>
> As promised, here is my early draft to try and capture what device
> tree overlays need to do and how to get there. Comments and
> suggestions greatly appreciated.
>
> Device Tree Overlay Feature
>
>
Op 10 nov. 2012, om 00:40 heeft Grant Likely het
volgende geschreven:
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 11/09/2012 09:28 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Stephen Warren
>>> wrote:
>> ...
I do rather suspect this use-case is quite
Op 10 nov. 2012, om 00:40 heeft Grant Likely grant.lik...@secretlab.ca het
volgende geschreven:
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org wrote:
On 11/09/2012 09:28 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org
Op 5 nov. 2012, om 21:40 heeft Grant Likely grant.lik...@secretlab.ca het
volgende geschreven:
Hey folks,
As promised, here is my early draft to try and capture what device
tree overlays need to do and how to get there. Comments and
suggestions greatly appreciated.
Device Tree Overlay
Hi Grant,
Sorry for the late comments, travelling...
On Nov 9, 2012, at 6:28 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org wrote:
On 11/05/2012 01:40 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
Hey folks,
As promised, here is my early draft to try and capture
Hi Grant,
On Nov 9, 2012, at 7:02 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 12:54 AM, Mitch Bradley w...@firmworks.com wrote:
On 11/6/2012 12:37 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
This proposal is very oriented at an overlay-based approach. I'm not
totally convinced that a pure overlay approach
Hi Grant,
On Nov 9, 2012, at 10:33 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
pa...@antoniou-consulting.com wrote:
On Nov 7, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
Maybe some extra version match table can just be passed during the board
machine_init
Hi Grant,
On Nov 9, 2012, at 11:22 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 5:32 AM, Joel A Fernandes agnel.j...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Pantelis,
I hope I'm not too late to reply as I'm traveling.
On Nov 6, 2012, at 5:30 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
pa...@antoniou-consulting.com wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On Nov 10, 2012, at 12:57 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 11/08/2012 07:26 PM, David Gibson wrote:
...
I also think graft will handle most of your use cases, although as I
said I don't fully understand the implications of some of them, so I
could be wrong. So, the actual insertion
Hi Stephen,
On Nov 10, 2012, at 1:23 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 11/09/2012 09:28 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org
wrote:
...
I do rather suspect this use-case is quite common. NVIDIA certainly has
a bunch of development boards
Hi Joel,
Again, sorry for the late reply due to travel.
On Nov 10, 2012, at 5:36 AM, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
Hi Pantelis,
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 2:13 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
pa...@antoniou-consulting.com wrote:
Option C: U-Boot loads both the base and overlay FDT files, merges them,
Hi Rob.
On Nov 11, 2012, at 10:47 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
On 11/09/2012 10:28:59 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org
wrote:
On 11/05/2012 01:40 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
I'm not actually opposed to it, but it needs to be
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
pa...@antoniou-consulting.com wrote:
Hi Grant,
On Nov 9, 2012, at 10:33 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
pa...@antoniou-consulting.com wrote:
On Nov 7, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
On 11/09/2012 09:28 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org wrote:
On 11/05/2012 01:40 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
Hey folks,
As promised, here is my early draft to try and capture what device
tree overlays need to do and how to get there.
On 11/12/2012 04:23 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
Hi Grant,
Sorry for the late comments, travelling...
On Nov 9, 2012, at 6:28 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
...
*with the caveat that not all types of changes are a good idea and we
may disallow. For example, is changing properties in existing
On 11/12/2012 05:10 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On Nov 10, 2012, at 1:23 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 11/09/2012 09:28 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org
wrote:
...
I do rather suspect this use-case is quite
On 11/12/2012 05:50 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
Hi Rob.
On Nov 11, 2012, at 10:47 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
On 11/09/2012 10:28:59 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org
wrote:
On 11/05/2012 01:40 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On Nov 12, 2012, at 6:49 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 11/12/2012 04:23 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
Hi Grant,
Sorry for the late comments, travelling...
On Nov 9, 2012, at 6:28 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
...
*with the caveat that not all types of changes are a good idea and we
On 11/12/2012 10:00 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On Nov 12, 2012, at 6:49 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 11/12/2012 04:23 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
Hi Grant,
Sorry for the late comments, travelling...
On Nov 9, 2012, at 6:28 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
...
*with the caveat
Hi Stephen,
On Nov 12, 2012, at 7:10 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 11/12/2012 10:00 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On Nov 12, 2012, at 6:49 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 11/12/2012 04:23 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
Hi Grant,
Sorry for the late comments, travelling...
On
On 11/12/2012 10:19 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On Nov 12, 2012, at 7:10 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 11/12/2012 10:00 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On Nov 12, 2012, at 6:49 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 11/12/2012 04:23 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
Hi Grant,
Hi Stephen,
On Nov 12, 2012, at 7:29 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 11/12/2012 10:19 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On Nov 12, 2012, at 7:10 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 11/12/2012 10:00 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On Nov 12, 2012, at 6:49 PM, Stephen Warren
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
pa...@antoniou-consulting.com wrote:
Hi Grant,
Sorry for the late comments, travelling...
On Nov 9, 2012, at 6:28 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org
wrote:
On 11/05/2012 01:40
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 09:08:14PM +, Grant Likely wrote:
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 2:26 AM, David Gibson
da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au wrote:
Summary points:
- Create an FDT overlay data format and usage model
- SHALL reliable resolve or validate of phandles between base and
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 04:40:15PM +0100, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
Hi David,
[snip]
I think graft is basically a safer operation, particular if we're
doing this at runtime with userspace passing in these fdt fragments.
In fact I'd go so far as to say if you really need the full overlay
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 09:42:37PM +, Grant Likely wrote:
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 2:26 AM, David Gibson
da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au wrote:
(3) Resolving phandle references from the subtree to the main tree.
So, I think this can actually be avoided, at least in cases where what
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 09:36:26PM -0600, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
Hi Pantelis,
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 2:13 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
pa...@antoniou-consulting.com wrote:
Option C: U-Boot loads both the base and overlay FDT files, merges them,
and passes the resolved tree to the
Hi Grant,
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Grant Likely grant.lik...@secretlab.ca wrote:
(2)
Also this discussed a while back but at some point is going to brought
up again- loading of dt fragment directly from EEPROM and merging at
run time. If we were to implement this in kernel, we would
On 11/12/2012 06:05 PM, David Gibson wrote:
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 09:42:37PM +, Grant Likely wrote:
...
2) graft bundle
The base tree has something like this:
...
i2c@XXX {
...
cape-socket {
compatible =
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 09:52:32AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 11/12/2012 05:10 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
[snip]
Oh yes. In fact if one was to use a single kernel image for beagleboard
and beaglebone, for the cape to work for both, it is required for it's
dtb to be compatible.
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:22:07PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 11/12/2012 06:05 PM, David Gibson wrote:
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 09:42:37PM +, Grant Likely wrote:
...
2) graft bundle
The base tree has something like this:
...
i2c@XXX {
...
On 11/09/2012 10:28:59 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Stephen Warren
wrote:
> On 11/05/2012 01:40 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
I'm not actually opposed to it, but it needs to be done in an elegant
way. The DT data model already imposes more of a conceptual
On 11/09/2012 10:28:59 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Stephen Warren
swar...@wwwdotorg.org wrote:
On 11/05/2012 01:40 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
I'm not actually opposed to it, but it needs to be done in an elegant
way. The DT data model already imposes
Hi Pantelis,
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 2:13 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
wrote:
Option C: U-Boot loads both the base and overlay FDT files, merges them,
and passes the resolved tree to the kernel.
>>>
>>> Could be made to work. Only really required if Joanne wants the
>>> cape
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 8:29 AM, David Gibson
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 12:32:09AM -0500, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
>> Hi Pantelis,
>>
>> I hope I'm not too late to reply as I'm traveling.
>>
>> On Nov 6, 2012, at 5:30 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Joanne has purchased one of
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 11/09/2012 09:28 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Stephen Warren
>> wrote:
> ...
>>> I do rather suspect this use-case is quite common. NVIDIA certainly has
>>> a bunch of development boards with pluggable
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 11/05/2012 01:40 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>> As promised, here is my early draft to try and capture what device
>> tree overlays need to do and how to get there. Comments and
>> suggestions greatly appreciated.
>
> Here's one other
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 11/08/2012 07:26 PM, David Gibson wrote:
> ...
>> I also think graft will handle most of your use cases, although as I
>> said I don't fully understand the implications of some of them, so I
>> could be wrong. So, the actual insertion
On 11/09/2012 09:28 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
...
>> I do rather suspect this use-case is quite common. NVIDIA certainly has
>> a bunch of development boards with pluggable
>> PMIC/audio/WiFi/display/..., and I believe there's some ability to
On 11/08/2012 07:26 PM, David Gibson wrote:
...
> So, let me take a stab at this from a more bottom-up approach, and see
> if we meet in the middle somewhere. As I discussed in the other
> thread with Daniel Mack, I can see two different operationso on the
> fdt that might be useful in this
On 11/05/2012 01:40 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> As promised, here is my early draft to try and capture what device
> tree overlays need to do and how to get there. Comments and
> suggestions greatly appreciated.
Here's one other requirement I'd like that I don't think I saw
explicitly mentioned in
On 11/08/2012 10:32 PM, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
...
> Alternatively to hashing, reading David Gibson's paper I followed,
> phandle is supposed to 'uniquely' identity node. I wonder why the node
> name itself is not sufficient to uniquely identify. The code that does
> the tree walking can then
On 11/08/2012 07:26 PM, David Gibson wrote:
...
> I also think graft will handle most of your use cases, although as I
> said I don't fully understand the implications of some of them, so I
> could be wrong. So, the actual insertion of the subtree is pretty
> trivial to implement. phandles are
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 2:26 AM, David Gibson
wrote:
> (3) Resolving phandle references from the subtree to the main tree.
>
> So, I think this can actually be avoided, at least in cases where what
> physical connections are available to the expansion module is well
> defined. The main causes to
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 5:32 AM, Joel A Fernandes wrote:
> Hi Pantelis,
>
> I hope I'm not too late to reply as I'm traveling.
>
> On Nov 6, 2012, at 5:30 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
> wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> Joanne has purchased one of Jane's capes and packaged it into a rugged
>>> case for data logging.
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 2:26 AM, David Gibson
wrote:
>> Summary points:
>> - Create an FDT overlay data format and usage model
>> - SHALL reliable resolve or validate of phandles between base and
>> overlay trees
>
> So, I'm not at all clear on what this proposed phandle validation
> would
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
>> Maybe some extra version match table can just be passed during the board
>> machine_init
>>
>> of_platform_populate(NULL, omap_dt_match_table, NULL, NULL,
>>
1 - 100 of 196 matches
Mail list logo
