On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 07:16:10PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 14 March 2014, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 06:46:23PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Friday 14 March 2014, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> > >
> > > > +int of_pci_range_to_resource(struct of_pci_range *range,
On Friday 14 March 2014, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 06:46:23PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Friday 14 March 2014, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> >
> > > +int of_pci_range_to_resource(struct of_pci_range *range,
> > > + struct device_node *np, struct resource *res)
> > > +{
> >
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 06:46:23PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 14 March 2014, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> > You are right, that was lazy of me. What about this version?
>
> Yes, that seems better. Thanks for fixing it up.
>
> But back to the more important question that I realized we have
>
On Friday 14 March 2014, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> You are right, that was lazy of me. What about this version?
Yes, that seems better. Thanks for fixing it up.
But back to the more important question that I realized we have
not resolved yet:
You now have two completely independent allocation functio
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 05:05:28PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 14 March 2014, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> > +int of_pci_range_to_resource(struct of_pci_range *range,
> > + struct device_node *np, struct resource *res)
> > +{
> > + res->flags = range->flags;
> > + if (res->fla
On Friday 14 March 2014, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> +int of_pci_range_to_resource(struct of_pci_range *range,
> + struct device_node *np, struct resource *res)
> +{
> + res->flags = range->flags;
> + if (res->flags & IORESOURCE_IO) {
> + unsigned long port = -1;
> +
6 matches
Mail list logo
