On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 10:57:33PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
> On 05/27/2016 08:36 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > It is reasonable to provide and document something here but when there's
> > some fairly simple and obvious better things we could be doing it should
> > be those rather than the
On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 10:57:33PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
> On 05/27/2016 08:36 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > It is reasonable to provide and document something here but when there's
> > some fairly simple and obvious better things we could be doing it should
> > be those rather than the
On 05/27/2016 08:36 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
Personally the way I parse this situation is that the kernel is taking
a look at what's in the DT and making an effort to present it usefully
in the running systems. Fixing our current interpretation in stone as
a supported thing when we don't have to
On 05/27/2016 08:36 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
Personally the way I parse this situation is that the kernel is taking
a look at what's in the DT and making an effort to present it usefully
in the running systems. Fixing our current interpretation in stone as
a supported thing when we don't have to
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 11:46:35AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 5/25/2016 10:48 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Sometimes the best thing to do is remove the behaviour, some of these
> Yes. And I have not formed an opinion on whether the existing
> behavior should be kept, deprecated, or removed.
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 11:46:35AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 5/25/2016 10:48 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Sometimes the best thing to do is remove the behaviour, some of these
> Yes. And I have not formed an opinion on whether the existing
> behavior should be kept, deprecated, or removed.
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 11:04:18PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
> My point is that I don't think it would be doable to get every
> devicetree file out there into the mainline kernel; it's not even
> desirable. devicetree files for custom platforms are a lot like
> userspace applications, the
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 11:04:18PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
> My point is that I don't think it would be doable to get every
> devicetree file out there into the mainline kernel; it's not even
> desirable. devicetree files for custom platforms are a lot like
> userspace applications, the
On 05/26/2016 08:47 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 12:58:22PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
>
>> One of the main drivers behind devicetree was that Linus got fed
>> up with the churn for all platform device changes in arch/arm.
>> I faintly recall him writing that he would be
On 05/26/2016 08:47 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 12:58:22PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
>
>> One of the main drivers behind devicetree was that Linus got fed
>> up with the churn for all platform device changes in arch/arm.
>> I faintly recall him writing that he would be
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 12:58:22PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
> One of the main drivers behind devicetree was that Linus got fed up
> with the churn for all platform device changes in arch/arm. I faintly
> recall him writing that he would be rather unhappy if that just got
> replaced with
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 12:58:22PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
> One of the main drivers behind devicetree was that Linus got fed up
> with the churn for all platform device changes in arch/arm. I faintly
> recall him writing that he would be rather unhappy if that just got
> replaced with
On 05/26/2016 12:07 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> I think Rob's referring to the fact that there are no in tree DTs
> that use this feature - all the aliases for SPI controllers in
> mainline are string based.
One of the main drivers behind devicetree was that Linus got fed up
with the churn for all
On 05/26/2016 12:07 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> I think Rob's referring to the fact that there are no in tree DTs
> that use this feature - all the aliases for SPI controllers in
> mainline are string based.
One of the main drivers behind devicetree was that Linus got fed up
with the churn for all
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 03:56:11AM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
> On 05/26/2016 03:44 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> > Lovely. "Here's something that's simple and useful for users. Let's
> > break it". What part of "we do not break userspace" do you not
> > understand? Because that would be a user
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 03:56:11AM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
> On 05/26/2016 03:44 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> > Lovely. "Here's something that's simple and useful for users. Let's
> > break it". What part of "we do not break userspace" do you not
> > understand? Because that would be a user
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 06:41:41PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 06:39:20PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
>> > Document how to use devicetree aliases to assign a stable
>> > bus number to a spi bus.
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 06:41:41PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 06:39:20PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
>> > Document how to use devicetree aliases to assign a stable
>> > bus number to a spi bus.
>> >
>> >
On 05/26/2016 03:44 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
Lovely. "Here's something that's simple and useful for users. Let's
break it". What part of "we do not break userspace" do you not
understand? Because that would be a user visible change.
The other saying is "if it is not upstream, it doesn't exist."
On 05/26/2016 03:44 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
Lovely. "Here's something that's simple and useful for users. Let's
break it". What part of "we do not break userspace" do you not
understand? Because that would be a user visible change.
The other saying is "if it is not upstream, it doesn't exist."
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 8:10 PM, Christer Weinigel wrote:
> On 05/25/2016 08:44 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 11:06:46AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>> On 5/25/2016 10:49 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
>>
Things get undocumented all the time when we deprecate
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 8:10 PM, Christer Weinigel wrote:
> On 05/25/2016 08:44 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 11:06:46AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>> On 5/25/2016 10:49 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
>>
Things get undocumented all the time when we deprecate them.
>>
>>> If it is
On 05/25/2016 08:44 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 11:06:46AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 5/25/2016 10:49 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
>
>>> Things get undocumented all the time when we deprecate them.
>
>> If it is deprecated then it should be documented as deprecated
>> so
On 05/25/2016 08:44 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 11:06:46AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 5/25/2016 10:49 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
>
>>> Things get undocumented all the time when we deprecate them.
>
>> If it is deprecated then it should be documented as deprecated
>> so
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 01:44:21PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> For SPI, I think we should use "label" which reflects a name that is
> defined by the h/w design and is meaningful to the user. Then perhaps
> the device becomes "/dev/spi/by-name//spidev.0" or simply
> "/dev/spidev-.0".
I agree -
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 01:44:21PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> For SPI, I think we should use "label" which reflects a name that is
> defined by the h/w design and is meaningful to the user. Then perhaps
> the device becomes "/dev/spi/by-name//spidev.0" or simply
> "/dev/spidev-.0".
I agree -
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 11:06:46AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 5/25/2016 10:49 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> > Things get undocumented all the time when we deprecate them.
> If it is deprecated then it should be documented as deprecated so
> people do not attempt to use it.
Or we could just
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 11:06:46AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 5/25/2016 10:49 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> > Things get undocumented all the time when we deprecate them.
> If it is deprecated then it should be documented as deprecated so
> people do not attempt to use it.
Or we could just
On 5/25/2016 10:48 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 08:32:51AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 5/25/2016 2:20 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>
>>> Linux for legacy reasons, documenting it as a binding is not necessarily
>>> in anyone's best interest. If we want to document it, we may
On 5/25/2016 10:48 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 08:32:51AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 5/25/2016 2:20 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>
>>> Linux for legacy reasons, documenting it as a binding is not necessarily
>>> in anyone's best interest. If we want to document it, we may
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 06:41:41PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 06:39:20PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
> > Document how to use devicetree aliases to assign a stable
> > bus number to a spi bus.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Christer Weinigel
> >
> >
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 06:41:41PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 06:39:20PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
> > Document how to use devicetree aliases to assign a stable
> > bus number to a spi bus.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Christer Weinigel
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Trivial
On 5/25/2016 10:49 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 04:34:50PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 5/24/2016 11:32 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 08:03:48PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
On 05/24/2016 07:20 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>>
> I'm not sure this is
On 5/25/2016 10:49 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 04:34:50PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 5/24/2016 11:32 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 08:03:48PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
On 05/24/2016 07:20 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>>
> I'm not sure this is
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:49:32PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 04:34:50PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> > It is in the kernel, it is appropriate to document it.
> Things get undocumented all the time when we deprecate them.
There's also the X.org approach of breaking
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:49:32PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 04:34:50PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> > It is in the kernel, it is appropriate to document it.
> Things get undocumented all the time when we deprecate them.
There's also the X.org approach of breaking
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 04:59:50PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> e.g. stating that this describes a well-defined system-specific bus
> number as documented in a manual, with a note regarding Linux behaviour
> is better simply describing the Linux behaviour.
If it means anything it's really a
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 04:59:50PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> e.g. stating that this describes a well-defined system-specific bus
> number as documented in a manual, with a note regarding Linux behaviour
> is better simply describing the Linux behaviour.
If it means anything it's really a
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 08:32:51AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 5/25/2016 2:20 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > Linux for legacy reasons, documenting it as a binding is not necessarily
> > in anyone's best interest. If we want to document it, we may want to
> > mark it as deprecated, with a pointer
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 08:32:51AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 5/25/2016 2:20 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > Linux for legacy reasons, documenting it as a binding is not necessarily
> > in anyone's best interest. If we want to document it, we may want to
> > mark it as deprecated, with a pointer
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 04:34:50PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 5/24/2016 11:32 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 08:03:48PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
> >> On 05/24/2016 07:20 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> >
> >>> I'm not sure this is something we want to support at all, I
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 04:34:50PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 5/24/2016 11:32 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 08:03:48PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
> >> On 05/24/2016 07:20 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> >
> >>> I'm not sure this is something we want to support at all, I
On 5/25/2016 9:06 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 08:25:44AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 5/24/2016 10:41 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 06:39:20PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
+Normally SPI buses are assigned dynamic bus numbers starting at 32766
On 5/25/2016 9:06 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 08:25:44AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 5/24/2016 10:41 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 06:39:20PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
+Normally SPI buses are assigned dynamic bus numbers starting at 32766
On 5/25/2016 8:59 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 08:32:51AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 5/25/2016 2:20 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 01:41:26PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
On 5/24/2016 10:41 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at
On 5/25/2016 8:59 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 08:32:51AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 5/25/2016 2:20 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 01:41:26PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
On 5/24/2016 10:41 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 08:25:44AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 5/24/2016 10:41 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 06:39:20PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
> >> +Normally SPI buses are assigned dynamic bus numbers starting at 32766
> >> +and counting downwards. It is
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 08:25:44AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 5/24/2016 10:41 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 06:39:20PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
> >> +Normally SPI buses are assigned dynamic bus numbers starting at 32766
> >> +and counting downwards. It is
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 08:32:51AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 5/25/2016 2:20 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 01:41:26PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> >> On 5/24/2016 10:41 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >>> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 06:39:20PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
>
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 08:32:51AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 5/25/2016 2:20 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 01:41:26PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> >> On 5/24/2016 10:41 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >>> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 06:39:20PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
>
On 5/25/2016 2:20 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 01:41:26PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 5/24/2016 10:41 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 06:39:20PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
Document how to use devicetree aliases to assign a stable
bus
On 5/25/2016 2:20 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 01:41:26PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 5/24/2016 10:41 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 06:39:20PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
Document how to use devicetree aliases to assign a stable
bus
On 5/24/2016 10:41 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 06:39:20PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
>> Document how to use devicetree aliases to assign a stable
>> bus number to a spi bus.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Christer Weinigel
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Trivial
On 5/24/2016 10:41 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 06:39:20PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
>> Document how to use devicetree aliases to assign a stable
>> bus number to a spi bus.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Christer Weinigel
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Trivial documentation change.
>>
>> Not
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 01:34:24PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 01:20:04PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
> > Does everything have to be so damn difficult?
> With the varied hardware that exists, and the constant expansion of the
> set of things which exist, there is
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 01:34:24PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 01:20:04PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
> > Does everything have to be so damn difficult?
> With the varied hardware that exists, and the constant expansion of the
> set of things which exist, there is
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 01:19:24PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 08:57:06PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
> > It's bloody convenient. I'm working with a Zync board right now where
> > we have multiple SPI ports. Being able to label the ports on the
> > board spi1, spi2
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 01:19:24PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 08:57:06PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
> > It's bloody convenient. I'm working with a Zync board right now where
> > we have multiple SPI ports. Being able to label the ports on the
> > board spi1, spi2
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 01:20:04PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
> On 05/25/2016 12:38 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:20:34AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 01:41:26PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> >
> >>> The code and behavior is in the Linux
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 01:20:04PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
> On 05/25/2016 12:38 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:20:34AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 01:41:26PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> >
> >>> The code and behavior is in the Linux
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 08:57:06PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
> On 05/24/2016 08:32 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > I'm not clear that we want to document this at all since I am not
> > clear that there is a sensible use case for doing it. I did ask
> > for one but you've not articulated one in
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 08:57:06PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
> On 05/24/2016 08:32 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > I'm not clear that we want to document this at all since I am not
> > clear that there is a sensible use case for doing it. I did ask
> > for one but you've not articulated one in
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 08:57:06PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
> On 05/24/2016 08:32 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 08:03:48PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
> >> On 05/24/2016 07:20 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> >
> >>> I'm not sure this is something we want to support at all,
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 08:57:06PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
> On 05/24/2016 08:32 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 08:03:48PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
> >> On 05/24/2016 07:20 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> >
> >>> I'm not sure this is something we want to support at all,
On 05/25/2016 12:38 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:20:34AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 01:41:26PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>
>>> The code and behavior is in the Linux kernel. It should be
>>> visible in the documentation instead of being a big
On 05/25/2016 12:38 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:20:34AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 01:41:26PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>
>>> The code and behavior is in the Linux kernel. It should be
>>> visible in the documentation instead of being a big
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:20:34AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 01:41:26PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> > The code and behavior is in the Linux kernel. It should be visible in
> > the documentation instead of being a big mystery of how it works.
> As above, I don't
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:20:34AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 01:41:26PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> > The code and behavior is in the Linux kernel. It should be visible in
> > the documentation instead of being a big mystery of how it works.
> As above, I don't
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 01:41:26PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 5/24/2016 10:41 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 06:39:20PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
> >> Document how to use devicetree aliases to assign a stable
> >> bus number to a spi bus.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by:
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 01:41:26PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 5/24/2016 10:41 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 06:39:20PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
> >> Document how to use devicetree aliases to assign a stable
> >> bus number to a spi bus.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by:
On 5/24/2016 4:34 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 5/24/2016 11:32 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 08:03:48PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
>>> On 05/24/2016 07:20 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>
I'm not sure this is something we want to support at all, I can't
immediately see
On 5/24/2016 4:34 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 5/24/2016 11:32 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 08:03:48PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
>>> On 05/24/2016 07:20 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>
I'm not sure this is something we want to support at all, I can't
immediately see
On 5/24/2016 11:32 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 08:03:48PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
>> On 05/24/2016 07:20 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>
>>> I'm not sure this is something we want to support at all, I can't
>>> immediately see anything that does this deliberately in the SPI
On 5/24/2016 11:32 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 08:03:48PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
>> On 05/24/2016 07:20 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>
>>> I'm not sure this is something we want to support at all, I can't
>>> immediately see anything that does this deliberately in the SPI
On 5/24/2016 10:41 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 06:39:20PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
>> Document how to use devicetree aliases to assign a stable
>> bus number to a spi bus.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Christer Weinigel
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Trivial
On 5/24/2016 10:41 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 06:39:20PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
>> Document how to use devicetree aliases to assign a stable
>> bus number to a spi bus.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Christer Weinigel
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Trivial documentation change.
>>
>> Not
On 05/24/2016 08:32 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 08:03:48PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
>> On 05/24/2016 07:20 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>
>>> I'm not sure this is something we want to support at all, I
>>> can't immediately see anything that does this deliberately in
>>> the
On 05/24/2016 08:32 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 08:03:48PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
>> On 05/24/2016 07:20 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>
>>> I'm not sure this is something we want to support at all, I
>>> can't immediately see anything that does this deliberately in
>>> the
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 08:03:48PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
> On 05/24/2016 07:20 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > I'm not sure this is something we want to support at all, I can't
> > immediately see anything that does this deliberately in the SPI
> > code and obviously the "bus number" is
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 08:03:48PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
> On 05/24/2016 07:20 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > I'm not sure this is something we want to support at all, I can't
> > immediately see anything that does this deliberately in the SPI
> > code and obviously the "bus number" is
On 05/24/2016 07:20 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>> Not having used devicetree that much it was surprisingly hard to
>> figure out how to assign a stable bus number to a spi bus. Add
>> a simple example that shows how to do that.
>
> I'm not sure this is something we want to support at all, I can't
On 05/24/2016 07:20 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>> Not having used devicetree that much it was surprisingly hard to
>> figure out how to assign a stable bus number to a spi bus. Add
>> a simple example that shows how to do that.
>
> I'm not sure this is something we want to support at all, I can't
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 06:39:20PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
> Document how to use devicetree aliases to assign a stable
> bus number to a spi bus.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christer Weinigel
>
> ---
>
> Trivial documentation change.
>
> Not having used devicetree that
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 06:39:20PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
> Document how to use devicetree aliases to assign a stable
> bus number to a spi bus.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christer Weinigel
>
> ---
>
> Trivial documentation change.
>
> Not having used devicetree that much it was surprisingly
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 06:39:20PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
> Document how to use devicetree aliases to assign a stable
> bus number to a spi bus.
Please submit patches using subject lines reflecting the style for the
subsystem. This makes it easier for people to identify relevant
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 06:39:20PM +0200, Christer Weinigel wrote:
> Document how to use devicetree aliases to assign a stable
> bus number to a spi bus.
Please submit patches using subject lines reflecting the style for the
subsystem. This makes it easier for people to identify relevant
86 matches
Mail list logo