Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Portable Device Tree Connector -- conceptual

On 07/08/16 12:20, Frank Rowand wrote: > On 07/08/16 00:26, Pantelis Antoniou wrote: >> Hi David, >> >>> On Jul 7, 2016, at 10:15 , David Gibson wrote: >>> > > < snip > > >>> Given that we're going to need new code to support this new connector >>> model, I think we

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Portable Device Tree Connector -- conceptual

On 07/08/16 12:20, Frank Rowand wrote: > On 07/08/16 00:26, Pantelis Antoniou wrote: >> Hi David, >> >>> On Jul 7, 2016, at 10:15 , David Gibson wrote: >>> > > < snip > > >>> Given that we're going to need new code to support this new connector >>> model, I think we should also fix some of the

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Portable Device Tree Connector -- conceptual

On 07/07/16 00:15, David Gibson wrote: > On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 04:55:49PM -0700, frowand.l...@gmail.com wrote: >> From: Frank Rowand >> >> Hi All, >> >> This is version 2 of this email. >> >> Changes from version 1: >> >> - some rewording of the text >> - removed

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Portable Device Tree Connector -- conceptual

On 07/07/16 00:15, David Gibson wrote: > On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 04:55:49PM -0700, frowand.l...@gmail.com wrote: >> From: Frank Rowand >> >> Hi All, >> >> This is version 2 of this email. >> >> Changes from version 1: >> >> - some rewording of the text >> - removed new (theoretical) dtc

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Portable Device Tree Connector -- conceptual

On 07/08/16 00:26, Pantelis Antoniou wrote: > Hi David, > >> On Jul 7, 2016, at 10:15 , David Gibson wrote: >> < snip > >> Given that we're going to need new code to support this new connector >> model, I think we should also fix some of the uglies in the current

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Portable Device Tree Connector -- conceptual

On 07/08/16 00:26, Pantelis Antoniou wrote: > Hi David, > >> On Jul 7, 2016, at 10:15 , David Gibson wrote: >> < snip > >> Given that we're going to need new code to support this new connector >> model, I think we should also fix some of the uglies in the current >> overlay format while we're

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Portable Device Tree Connector -- conceptual

On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 10:26:15AM +0300, Pantelis Antoniou wrote: > Hi David, > > > On Jul 7, 2016, at 10:15 , David Gibson wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 04:55:49PM -0700, frowand.l...@gmail.com wrote: > >> From: Frank Rowand >

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Portable Device Tree Connector -- conceptual

On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 10:26:15AM +0300, Pantelis Antoniou wrote: > Hi David, > > > On Jul 7, 2016, at 10:15 , David Gibson wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 04:55:49PM -0700, frowand.l...@gmail.com wrote: > >> From: Frank Rowand > >> > >> Hi All, > >> > >> This is version 2 of this

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Portable Device Tree Connector -- conceptual

Hi David, > On Jul 7, 2016, at 10:15 , David Gibson wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 04:55:49PM -0700, frowand.l...@gmail.com wrote: >> From: Frank Rowand >> >> Hi All, >> >> This is version 2 of this email. >> >> Changes from version

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Portable Device Tree Connector -- conceptual

Hi David, > On Jul 7, 2016, at 10:15 , David Gibson wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 04:55:49PM -0700, frowand.l...@gmail.com wrote: >> From: Frank Rowand >> >> Hi All, >> >> This is version 2 of this email. >> >> Changes from version 1: >> >> - some rewording of the text >> - removed

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Portable Device Tree Connector -- conceptual

On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 04:55:49PM -0700, frowand.l...@gmail.com wrote: > From: Frank Rowand > > Hi All, > > This is version 2 of this email. > > Changes from version 1: > > - some rewording of the text > - removed new (theoretical) dtc directive "/connector/" >

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Portable Device Tree Connector -- conceptual

On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 04:55:49PM -0700, frowand.l...@gmail.com wrote: > From: Frank Rowand > > Hi All, > > This is version 2 of this email. > > Changes from version 1: > > - some rewording of the text > - removed new (theoretical) dtc directive "/connector/" > - added compatibility

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Portable Device Tree Connector -- conceptual

On 07/05/16 11:01, Pantelis Antoniou wrote: > Hi Frank, > > Sorry for taking a bit to reply, had to grok it well first. > >> On Jul 3, 2016, at 02:55 , frowand.l...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> From: Frank Rowand >> >> Hi All, >> >> This is version 2 of this email. >> >>

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Portable Device Tree Connector -- conceptual

On 07/05/16 11:01, Pantelis Antoniou wrote: > Hi Frank, > > Sorry for taking a bit to reply, had to grok it well first. > >> On Jul 3, 2016, at 02:55 , frowand.l...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> From: Frank Rowand >> >> Hi All, >> >> This is version 2 of this email. >> >> Changes from version 1: >> >>

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Portable Device Tree Connector -- conceptual

Hi Frank, Sorry for taking a bit to reply, had to grok it well first. > On Jul 3, 2016, at 02:55 , frowand.l...@gmail.com wrote: > > From: Frank Rowand > > Hi All, > > This is version 2 of this email. > > Changes from version 1: > > - some rewording of the text >

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Portable Device Tree Connector -- conceptual

Hi Frank, Sorry for taking a bit to reply, had to grok it well first. > On Jul 3, 2016, at 02:55 , frowand.l...@gmail.com wrote: > > From: Frank Rowand > > Hi All, > > This is version 2 of this email. > > Changes from version 1: > > - some rewording of the text > - removed new

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Portable Device Tree Connector -- conceptual

On 07/04/16 08:22, Mark Brown wrote: > On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 04:55:49PM -0700, frowand.l...@gmail.com wrote: > >> This is an extremely simple example to illustrate the concepts. It is not >> meant to represent the complexity of a real board. >> >> To start with, assume that the device that

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Portable Device Tree Connector -- conceptual

On 07/04/16 08:22, Mark Brown wrote: > On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 04:55:49PM -0700, frowand.l...@gmail.com wrote: > >> This is an extremely simple example to illustrate the concepts. It is not >> meant to represent the complexity of a real board. >> >> To start with, assume that the device that

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Portable Device Tree Connector -- conceptual

On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 04:55:49PM -0700, frowand.l...@gmail.com wrote: > This is an extremely simple example to illustrate the concepts. It is not > meant to represent the complexity of a real board. > > To start with, assume that the device that will eventually be on a daughter > board is

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Portable Device Tree Connector -- conceptual

On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 04:55:49PM -0700, frowand.l...@gmail.com wrote: > This is an extremely simple example to illustrate the concepts. It is not > meant to represent the complexity of a real board. > > To start with, assume that the device that will eventually be on a daughter > board is

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Portable Device Tree Connector -- conceptual

On 07/02/16 16:55, frowand.l...@gmail.com wrote: > From: Frank Rowand > > Hi All, > > This is version 2 of this email. < snip > > The one remaining piece that this patch does not provide is how > the overlay manager (which does not yet exist in the mainline > tree)

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] Portable Device Tree Connector -- conceptual

On 07/02/16 16:55, frowand.l...@gmail.com wrote: > From: Frank Rowand > > Hi All, > > This is version 2 of this email. < snip > > The one remaining piece that this patch does not provide is how > the overlay manager (which does not yet exist in the mainline > tree) can apply an overlay to two

[RFC PATCH 0/1] Portable Device Tree Connector -- conceptual

From: Frank Rowand Hi All, This is version 2 of this email. Changes from version 1: - some rewording of the text - removed new (theoretical) dtc directive "/connector/" - added compatibility between mother board and daughter board - added info on applying a

[RFC PATCH 0/1] Portable Device Tree Connector -- conceptual

From: Frank Rowand Hi All, This is version 2 of this email. Changes from version 1: - some rewording of the text - removed new (theoretical) dtc directive "/connector/" - added compatibility between mother board and daughter board - added info on applying a single .dtbo to different