o.org; santosh.shu...@linaro.org;
> > k...@vger.kernel.org; gre...@linuxfoundation.org
> > Subject: Re: RFC: (re-)binding the VFIO platform driver to a platform device
> >
> > On Wed, 9 Oct 2013 15:03:19 -0500
> > Scott Wood wrote:
> >
> > > On
x Williamson;
> > linux-
> > ker...@vger.kernel.org; a.mota...@virtualopensystems.com; ag...@suse.de;
> > Sethi
> > Varun-B16395; Bhushan Bharat-R65777; peter.mayd...@linaro.org;
> > santosh.shu...@linaro.org; k...@vger.kernel.org; gre...@linuxfoundation.org
> >
opensystems.com;
> ag...@suse.de; Sethi Varun-B16395; peter.mayd...@linaro.org;
> santosh.shu...@linaro.org; k...@vger.kernel.org; gre...@linuxfoundation.org
> Subject: Re: RFC: (re-)binding the VFIO platform driver to a platform device
>
> On Thu, 2013-10-10 at 02:4
> I am trying to understand what you are proposing here (example "DEVICE"
> can be handled by "DRIVER1" and "VFIO-PLATFORM-DRIVER"):
> - By default drv->explicit_bind_only will be clear in all drivers.
> - By default device->explicit_bind_only will also be clear for all
> devices.
> - On boot,
o.org;
> alex.william...@redhat.com; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
> a.mota...@virtualopensystems.com; ag...@suse.de; Sethi Varun-B16395; Bhushan
> Bharat-R65777; peter.mayd...@linaro.org; santosh.shu...@linaro.org;
> k...@vger.kernel.org; gre...@linuxfoundation.org
> Subject: Re: RFC: (
.de; Sethi
> Varun-B16395; Bhushan Bharat-R65777; peter.mayd...@linaro.org;
> santosh.shu...@linaro.org; k...@vger.kernel.org; gre...@linuxfoundation.org
> Subject: Re: RFC: (re-)binding the VFIO platform driver to a platform device
>
> On Wed, 2013-10-09 at 14:44
; Bhushan Bharat-R65777; peter.mayd...@linaro.org;
santosh.shu...@linaro.org; k...@vger.kernel.org; gre...@linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: RFC: (re-)binding the VFIO platform driver to a platform device
On Wed, 2013-10-09 at 14:44 -0500, Yoder Stuart-B08248 wrote:
-Original Message
; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
a.mota...@virtualopensystems.com; ag...@suse.de; Sethi Varun-B16395; Bhushan
Bharat-R65777; peter.mayd...@linaro.org; santosh.shu...@linaro.org;
k...@vger.kernel.org; gre...@linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: RFC: (re-)binding the VFIO platform driver to a platform
I am trying to understand what you are proposing here (example DEVICE
can be handled by DRIVER1 and VFIO-PLATFORM-DRIVER):
- By default drv-explicit_bind_only will be clear in all drivers.
- By default device-explicit_bind_only will also be clear for all
devices.
- On boot, matching
...@suse.de; Sethi Varun-B16395; peter.mayd...@linaro.org;
santosh.shu...@linaro.org; k...@vger.kernel.org; gre...@linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: RFC: (re-)binding the VFIO platform driver to a platform device
On Thu, 2013-10-10 at 02:45 -0500, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote:
-Original Message
; a.mota...@virtualopensystems.com; ag...@suse.de;
Sethi
Varun-B16395; Bhushan Bharat-R65777; peter.mayd...@linaro.org;
santosh.shu...@linaro.org; k...@vger.kernel.org; gre...@linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: RFC: (re-)binding the VFIO platform driver to a platform device
On Wed, 2013
Subject: Re: RFC: (re-)binding the VFIO platform driver to a platform device
On Wed, 9 Oct 2013 15:03:19 -0500
Scott Wood scottw...@freescale.com wrote:
On Wed, 2013-10-09 at 14:44 -0500, Yoder Stuart-B08248 wrote:
From: Wood Scott-B07421
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 2
On Wed, 9 Oct 2013 15:03:19 -0500
Scott Wood wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-10-09 at 14:44 -0500, Yoder Stuart-B08248 wrote:
> > > From: Wood Scott-B07421
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 2:22 PM
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2013-10-09 at 14:02 -0500, Yoder Stuart-B08248 wrote:
> > > > Have been thinking
Alex Williamson;
> > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; a.mota...@virtualopensystems.com;
> > ag...@suse.de; Sethi Varun-B16395; Bhushan Bharat-R65777;
> > peter.mayd...@linaro.org; santosh.shu...@linaro.org; k...@vger.kernel.org;
> > gre...@linuxfoundation.org
> > Subject: Re: RFC:
On Wed, 2013-10-09 at 12:16 -0700, gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 07:02:25PM +, Yoder Stuart-B08248 wrote:
> > Have been thinking about this issue some more. As Scott mentioned,
> > 'wildcard' matching for a driver can be fairly done in the platform
> > bus
@suse.de; Sethi Varun-B16395; Bhushan Bharat-R65777;
> peter.mayd...@linaro.org; santosh.shu...@linaro.org; k...@vger.kernel.org;
> gre...@linuxfoundation.org
> Subject: Re: RFC: (re-)binding the VFIO platform driver to a platform
> device
>
> On Wed, 2013-10-09 at 14:02 -0500, Y
On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 07:02:25PM +, Yoder Stuart-B08248 wrote:
> Have been thinking about this issue some more. As Scott mentioned,
> 'wildcard' matching for a driver can be fairly done in the platform
> bus driver. We could add a new flag to the platform driver struct:
>
> diff --git
On Wed, 2013-10-09 at 14:02 -0500, Yoder Stuart-B08248 wrote:
> Have been thinking about this issue some more. As Scott mentioned,
> 'wildcard' matching for a driver can be fairly done in the platform
> bus driver. We could add a new flag to the platform driver struct:
>
> diff --git
Have been thinking about this issue some more. As Scott mentioned,
'wildcard' matching for a driver can be fairly done in the platform
bus driver. We could add a new flag to the platform driver struct:
diff --git a/drivers/base/platform.c b/drivers/base/platform.c
index 4f8bef3..4d6cf14 100644
Have been thinking about this issue some more. As Scott mentioned,
'wildcard' matching for a driver can be fairly done in the platform
bus driver. We could add a new flag to the platform driver struct:
diff --git a/drivers/base/platform.c b/drivers/base/platform.c
index 4f8bef3..4d6cf14 100644
On Wed, 2013-10-09 at 14:02 -0500, Yoder Stuart-B08248 wrote:
Have been thinking about this issue some more. As Scott mentioned,
'wildcard' matching for a driver can be fairly done in the platform
bus driver. We could add a new flag to the platform driver struct:
diff --git
On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 07:02:25PM +, Yoder Stuart-B08248 wrote:
Have been thinking about this issue some more. As Scott mentioned,
'wildcard' matching for a driver can be fairly done in the platform
bus driver. We could add a new flag to the platform driver struct:
diff --git
; Bhushan Bharat-R65777;
peter.mayd...@linaro.org; santosh.shu...@linaro.org; k...@vger.kernel.org;
gre...@linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: RFC: (re-)binding the VFIO platform driver to a platform
device
On Wed, 2013-10-09 at 14:02 -0500, Yoder Stuart-B08248 wrote:
Have been thinking about
On Wed, 2013-10-09 at 12:16 -0700, gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 07:02:25PM +, Yoder Stuart-B08248 wrote:
Have been thinking about this issue some more. As Scott mentioned,
'wildcard' matching for a driver can be fairly done in the platform
bus driver. We
; a.mota...@virtualopensystems.com;
ag...@suse.de; Sethi Varun-B16395; Bhushan Bharat-R65777;
peter.mayd...@linaro.org; santosh.shu...@linaro.org; k...@vger.kernel.org;
gre...@linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: RFC: (re-)binding the VFIO platform driver to a platform
device
On Wed, 2013-10
On Wed, 9 Oct 2013 15:03:19 -0500
Scott Wood scottw...@freescale.com wrote:
On Wed, 2013-10-09 at 14:44 -0500, Yoder Stuart-B08248 wrote:
From: Wood Scott-B07421
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 2:22 PM
On Wed, 2013-10-09 at 14:02 -0500, Yoder Stuart-B08248 wrote:
Have been
On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 02:11:34PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-10-03 at 11:54 -0700, gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 01:33:27PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> > > What it looks like we do still want from the driver core is the ability
> > > for a driver to say
On Thu, 2013-10-03 at 11:54 -0700, gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 01:33:27PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> > What it looks like we do still want from the driver core is the ability
> > for a driver to say that it should not be bound to a device except via
> > explicit
On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 01:33:27PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> What it looks like we do still want from the driver core is the ability
> for a driver to say that it should not be bound to a device except via
> explicit sysfs bind,
You can do that today by not providing any device ids in your
On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 16:40 -0700, gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 04:35:15PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 14:16 -0700, gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 04:08:41PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> > > > I don't see any
On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 16:40 -0700, gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 04:35:15PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 14:16 -0700, gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 04:08:41PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
I don't see any equivalent
On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 01:33:27PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
What it looks like we do still want from the driver core is the ability
for a driver to say that it should not be bound to a device except via
explicit sysfs bind,
You can do that today by not providing any device ids in your driver
On Thu, 2013-10-03 at 11:54 -0700, gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 01:33:27PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
What it looks like we do still want from the driver core is the ability
for a driver to say that it should not be bound to a device except via
explicit sysfs
On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 02:11:34PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
On Thu, 2013-10-03 at 11:54 -0700, gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 01:33:27PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
What it looks like we do still want from the driver core is the ability
for a driver to say that it
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 04:35:15PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 14:16 -0700, gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 04:08:41PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 13:37 -0700, gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Oct 02, 2013
On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 14:16 -0700, gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 04:08:41PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 13:37 -0700, gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 11:43:30AM -0700, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > > > > What's wrong
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 04:08:41PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 13:37 -0700, gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 11:43:30AM -0700, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > > > What's wrong with a non-vfio-specific flag that a driver can set, that
> > > > indicates
On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 13:37 -0700, gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 11:43:30AM -0700, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > > What's wrong with a non-vfio-specific flag that a driver can set, that
> > > indicates that the driver is willing to try to bind to any device on the
> > >
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 01:39:43PM -0700, gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 09:27:38PM +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > > > What you're suggesting would let users specify that
> > > > a serial driver should handle a NIC hardware, no? That sounds much much
> > > > worse
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 01:37:35PM -0700, gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 11:43:30AM -0700, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > > What's wrong with a non-vfio-specific flag that a driver can set, that
> > > indicates that the driver is willing to try to bind to any device on
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 09:27:38PM +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > > What you're suggesting would let users specify that
> > > a serial driver should handle a NIC hardware, no? That sounds much much
> > > worse to me.
> >
> > The flag (and wildcard match, if applicable) would be set by the
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 11:43:30AM -0700, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > What's wrong with a non-vfio-specific flag that a driver can set, that
> > indicates that the driver is willing to try to bind to any device on the
> > bus if explicitly requested via the existing sysfs bind mechanism?
> >
> It
xfoundation.org; linux-
> > > > > ker...@vger.kernel.org; a.mota...@virtualopensystems.com;
> > > > > ag...@suse.de;
> > > > > Yoder Stuart-B08248; Wood Scott-B07421; Sethi Varun-B16395; Bhushan
> > > > > Bharat-R65777; peter.mayd...@l
On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 21:13 +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 03:04:15PM -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:43:30 -0700
> > Christoffer Dall wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 01:32:38PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> > > > What's wrong with a
ag...@suse.de;
> > > > Yoder Stuart-B08248; Wood Scott-B07421; Sethi Varun-B16395; Bhushan
> > > > Bharat-R65777; peter.mayd...@linaro.org; santosh.shu...@linaro.org;
> > > > k...@vger.kernel.org
> > > > Subject: Re: RFC: (re-)binding the VFIO platform d
Phillips; gre...@linuxfoundation.org; linux-
> > > > > ker...@vger.kernel.org; a.mota...@virtualopensystems.com;
> > > > > ag...@suse.de;
> > > > > Yoder Stuart-B08248; Wood Scott-B07421; Sethi Varun-B16395; Bhushan
> > > > > Bharat-
ag...@suse.de;
> > > > Yoder Stuart-B08248; Wood Scott-B07421; Sethi Varun-B16395; Bhushan
> > > > Bharat-R65777; peter.mayd...@linaro.org; santosh.shu...@linaro.org;
> > > > k...@vger.kernel.org
> > > > Subject: Re: RFC: (re-)binding the VFIO platform d
> Bharat-R65777; peter.mayd...@linaro.org; santosh.shu...@linaro.org;
> > > k...@vger.kernel.org
> > > Subject: Re: RFC: (re-)binding the VFIO platform driver to a platform
> > > device
> > >
> > > Wouldn't a sysfs file to add compatibility strings to
nuxfoundation.org; linux-
> > ker...@vger.kernel.org; a.mota...@virtualopensystems.com; ag...@suse.de;
> > Yoder Stuart-B08248; Wood Scott-B07421; Sethi Varun-B16395; Bhushan
> > Bharat-R65777; peter.mayd...@linaro.org; santosh.shu...@linaro.org;
> > k...@vger.kernel.org
&g
.@suse.de;
> Yoder Stuart-B08248; Wood Scott-B07421; Sethi Varun-B16395; Bhushan
> Bharat-R65777; peter.mayd...@linaro.org; santosh.shu...@linaro.org;
> k...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: RFC: (re-)binding the VFIO platform driver to a platform
> device
>
> On Tue, Oct 01, 20
On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 16:14 +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 08:35:56PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 02:53 +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 05:02:44PM -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 1 Oct 2013 13:00:54 -0700
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 08:35:56PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 02:53 +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 05:02:44PM -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
> > > On Tue, 1 Oct 2013 13:00:54 -0700
> > > Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Oct 01,
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 08:35:56PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 02:53 +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote:
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 05:02:44PM -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
On Tue, 1 Oct 2013 13:00:54 -0700
Greg Kroah-Hartman gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Tue,
On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 16:14 +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote:
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 08:35:56PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 02:53 +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote:
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 05:02:44PM -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
On Tue, 1 Oct 2013 13:00:54 -0700
Greg
-B08248; Wood Scott-B07421; Sethi Varun-B16395; Bhushan
Bharat-R65777; peter.mayd...@linaro.org; santosh.shu...@linaro.org;
k...@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RFC: (re-)binding the VFIO platform driver to a platform
device
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 08:35:56PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote
...@vger.kernel.org; a.mota...@virtualopensystems.com; ag...@suse.de;
Yoder Stuart-B08248; Wood Scott-B07421; Sethi Varun-B16395; Bhushan
Bharat-R65777; peter.mayd...@linaro.org; santosh.shu...@linaro.org;
k...@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RFC: (re-)binding the VFIO platform driver to a platform
device
: Re: RFC: (re-)binding the VFIO platform driver to a platform
device
Wouldn't a sysfs file to add compatibility strings to the vfio-platform
driver make driver_match_device return true and make everyone happy?
I had a similar thought. Why can't we do something like:
echo fsl
-R65777; peter.mayd...@linaro.org; santosh.shu...@linaro.org;
k...@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RFC: (re-)binding the VFIO platform driver to a platform
device
Wouldn't a sysfs file to add compatibility strings to the vfio-platform
driver make driver_match_device return true
;
Yoder Stuart-B08248; Wood Scott-B07421; Sethi Varun-B16395; Bhushan
Bharat-R65777; peter.mayd...@linaro.org; santosh.shu...@linaro.org;
k...@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RFC: (re-)binding the VFIO platform driver to a platform
device
Wouldn't a sysfs file to add
...@linaro.org; santosh.shu...@linaro.org;
k...@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RFC: (re-)binding the VFIO platform driver to a platform
device
Wouldn't a sysfs file to add compatibility strings to the vfio-platform
driver make driver_match_device return true and make everyone happy
On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 21:13 +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote:
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 03:04:15PM -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
On Wed, 2 Oct 2013 11:43:30 -0700
Christoffer Dall christoffer.d...@linaro.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 01:32:38PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
What's wrong
Scott-B07421; Sethi Varun-B16395; Bhushan
Bharat-R65777; peter.mayd...@linaro.org; santosh.shu...@linaro.org;
k...@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RFC: (re-)binding the VFIO platform driver to a platform
device
Wouldn't a sysfs file to add compatibility strings
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 11:43:30AM -0700, Christoffer Dall wrote:
What's wrong with a non-vfio-specific flag that a driver can set, that
indicates that the driver is willing to try to bind to any device on the
bus if explicitly requested via the existing sysfs bind mechanism?
It sounds
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 09:27:38PM +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote:
What you're suggesting would let users specify that
a serial driver should handle a NIC hardware, no? That sounds much much
worse to me.
The flag (and wildcard match, if applicable) would be set by the driver,
not
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 01:37:35PM -0700, gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 11:43:30AM -0700, Christoffer Dall wrote:
What's wrong with a non-vfio-specific flag that a driver can set, that
indicates that the driver is willing to try to bind to any device on the
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 01:39:43PM -0700, gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 09:27:38PM +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote:
What you're suggesting would let users specify that
a serial driver should handle a NIC hardware, no? That sounds much much
worse to me.
On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 13:37 -0700, gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 11:43:30AM -0700, Christoffer Dall wrote:
What's wrong with a non-vfio-specific flag that a driver can set, that
indicates that the driver is willing to try to bind to any device on the
bus if
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 04:08:41PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 13:37 -0700, gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 11:43:30AM -0700, Christoffer Dall wrote:
What's wrong with a non-vfio-specific flag that a driver can set, that
indicates that the
On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 14:16 -0700, gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 04:08:41PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 13:37 -0700, gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 11:43:30AM -0700, Christoffer Dall wrote:
What's wrong with a
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 04:35:15PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 14:16 -0700, gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 04:08:41PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 13:37 -0700, gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at
On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 02:53 +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 05:02:44PM -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
> > On Tue, 1 Oct 2013 13:00:54 -0700
> > Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 01:38:31PM -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > >
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 05:02:44PM -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Oct 2013 13:00:54 -0700
> Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 01:38:31PM -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Santosh and I are having a problem figuring out how to enable binding
> > >
On Tue, 2013-10-01 at 16:59 -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Oct 2013 14:15:38 -0500
> Scott Wood wrote:
>
> > I think the ideal interface would be if you could write the sysfs device
> > name into the vfio bind file (or some new file in the same directory),
> > and have it claim that
On Tue, 1 Oct 2013 13:00:54 -0700
Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 01:38:31PM -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Santosh and I are having a problem figuring out how to enable binding
> > (and re-binding) platform devices to a platform VFIO driver (see
> > Antonis'
On Tue, 1 Oct 2013 14:17:16 -0500
Scott Wood wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-10-01 at 14:15 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-10-01 at 13:38 -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Santosh and I are having a problem figuring out how to enable binding
> > > (and re-binding) platform
On Tue, 1 Oct 2013 14:15:38 -0500
Scott Wood wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-10-01 at 13:38 -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Santosh and I are having a problem figuring out how to enable binding
> > (and re-binding) platform devices to a platform VFIO driver (see
> > Antonis' WIP: [1]) in an
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 01:38:31PM -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Santosh and I are having a problem figuring out how to enable binding
> (and re-binding) platform devices to a platform VFIO driver (see
> Antonis' WIP: [1]) in an upstream-acceptable manner.
>
> Binding platform drivers
On Tue, 2013-10-01 at 14:15 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-10-01 at 13:38 -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Santosh and I are having a problem figuring out how to enable binding
> > (and re-binding) platform devices to a platform VFIO driver (see
> > Antonis' WIP: [1]) in an
On Tue, 2013-10-01 at 13:38 -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Santosh and I are having a problem figuring out how to enable binding
> (and re-binding) platform devices to a platform VFIO driver (see
> Antonis' WIP: [1]) in an upstream-acceptable manner.
>
> Binding platform drivers currently
Hi,
Santosh and I are having a problem figuring out how to enable binding
(and re-binding) platform devices to a platform VFIO driver (see
Antonis' WIP: [1]) in an upstream-acceptable manner.
Binding platform drivers currently depends on a string match in the
device node's compatible entry. On
Hi,
Santosh and I are having a problem figuring out how to enable binding
(and re-binding) platform devices to a platform VFIO driver (see
Antonis' WIP: [1]) in an upstream-acceptable manner.
Binding platform drivers currently depends on a string match in the
device node's compatible entry. On
On Tue, 2013-10-01 at 13:38 -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
Hi,
Santosh and I are having a problem figuring out how to enable binding
(and re-binding) platform devices to a platform VFIO driver (see
Antonis' WIP: [1]) in an upstream-acceptable manner.
Binding platform drivers currently depends
On Tue, 2013-10-01 at 14:15 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
On Tue, 2013-10-01 at 13:38 -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
Hi,
Santosh and I are having a problem figuring out how to enable binding
(and re-binding) platform devices to a platform VFIO driver (see
Antonis' WIP: [1]) in an
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 01:38:31PM -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
Hi,
Santosh and I are having a problem figuring out how to enable binding
(and re-binding) platform devices to a platform VFIO driver (see
Antonis' WIP: [1]) in an upstream-acceptable manner.
Binding platform drivers currently
On Tue, 1 Oct 2013 14:15:38 -0500
Scott Wood scottw...@freescale.com wrote:
On Tue, 2013-10-01 at 13:38 -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
Hi,
Santosh and I are having a problem figuring out how to enable binding
(and re-binding) platform devices to a platform VFIO driver (see
Antonis' WIP:
On Tue, 1 Oct 2013 14:17:16 -0500
Scott Wood scottw...@freescale.com wrote:
On Tue, 2013-10-01 at 14:15 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
On Tue, 2013-10-01 at 13:38 -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
Hi,
Santosh and I are having a problem figuring out how to enable binding
(and re-binding)
On Tue, 1 Oct 2013 13:00:54 -0700
Greg Kroah-Hartman gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 01:38:31PM -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
Hi,
Santosh and I are having a problem figuring out how to enable binding
(and re-binding) platform devices to a platform VFIO driver (see
On Tue, 2013-10-01 at 16:59 -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
On Tue, 1 Oct 2013 14:15:38 -0500
Scott Wood scottw...@freescale.com wrote:
I think the ideal interface would be if you could write the sysfs device
name into the vfio bind file (or some new file in the same directory),
and have it
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 05:02:44PM -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
On Tue, 1 Oct 2013 13:00:54 -0700
Greg Kroah-Hartman gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 01:38:31PM -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
Hi,
Santosh and I are having a problem figuring out how to enable
On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 02:53 +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote:
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 05:02:44PM -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
On Tue, 1 Oct 2013 13:00:54 -0700
Greg Kroah-Hartman gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 01:38:31PM -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
Hi,
90 matches
Mail list logo
