On 23/05/2024 08:16, Luca Weiss wrote:
> On Donnerstag, 23. Mai 2024 08:02:13 MESZ Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 22/05/2024 19:34, Luca Weiss wrote:
>>> On Mittwoch, 22. Mai 2024 08:49:43 MESZ Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 21/05/2024 22:35, Luca Weiss wrote:
> On Dienstag, 21. Mai 2024
On Donnerstag, 23. Mai 2024 08:02:13 MESZ Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 22/05/2024 19:34, Luca Weiss wrote:
> > On Mittwoch, 22. Mai 2024 08:49:43 MESZ Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 21/05/2024 22:35, Luca Weiss wrote:
> >>> On Dienstag, 21. Mai 2024 10:58:07 MESZ Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 22/05/2024 19:34, Luca Weiss wrote:
> On Mittwoch, 22. Mai 2024 08:49:43 MESZ Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 21/05/2024 22:35, Luca Weiss wrote:
>>> On Dienstag, 21. Mai 2024 10:58:07 MESZ Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 20/05/2024 17:11, Luca Weiss wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof
>
>
On Mittwoch, 22. Mai 2024 08:49:43 MESZ Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 21/05/2024 22:35, Luca Weiss wrote:
> > On Dienstag, 21. Mai 2024 10:58:07 MESZ Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 20/05/2024 17:11, Luca Weiss wrote:
> >>> Hi Krzysztof
> >>>
> >>> Ack, sounds good.
> >>>
> >>> Maybe also
On 21/05/2024 22:35, Luca Weiss wrote:
> On Dienstag, 21. Mai 2024 10:58:07 MESZ Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 20/05/2024 17:11, Luca Weiss wrote:
>>> Hi Krzysztof
>>>
>>> Ack, sounds good.
>>>
>>> Maybe also from you, any opinion between these two binding styles?
>>>
>>> So first using index
On Dienstag, 21. Mai 2024 10:58:07 MESZ Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 20/05/2024 17:11, Luca Weiss wrote:
> > Hi Krzysztof
> >
> > Ack, sounds good.
> >
> > Maybe also from you, any opinion between these two binding styles?
> >
> > So first using index of mboxes for the numbering, where for
On 20/05/2024 17:11, Luca Weiss wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof
>
> Ack, sounds good.
>
> Maybe also from you, any opinion between these two binding styles?
>
> So first using index of mboxes for the numbering, where for the known
> usages the first element (and sometimes the 3rd - ipc-2) are empty <>.
>
On Montag, 20. Mai 2024 08:46:39 MESZ Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 15/05/2024 17:06, Luca Weiss wrote:
> > Hi Rob,
> >
> > Any feedback on the below topic?
>
> Can be explained in description, like
> mboxes:
> description: Each entry corresponds to one remote processor
> maxItems: 5
Hi
On 15/05/2024 17:06, Luca Weiss wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> Any feedback on the below topic?
Can be explained in description, like
mboxes:
description: Each entry corresponds to one remote processor
maxItems: 5
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Hi Rob,
Any feedback on the below topic?
Regards
Luca
On Donnerstag, 25. April 2024 20:54:40 MESZ Luca Weiss wrote:
> On Donnerstag, 25. April 2024 18:17:15 MESZ Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 07:21:51PM +0200, Luca Weiss wrote:
> > > The qcom,ipc-N properties are essentially
On Donnerstag, 25. April 2024 18:17:15 MESZ Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 07:21:51PM +0200, Luca Weiss wrote:
> > The qcom,ipc-N properties are essentially providing a reference to a
> > mailbox, so allow using the mboxes property to do the same in a more
> > structured way.
>
>
On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 07:21:51PM +0200, Luca Weiss wrote:
> The qcom,ipc-N properties are essentially providing a reference to a
> mailbox, so allow using the mboxes property to do the same in a more
> structured way.
Can we mark qcom,ipc-N as deprecated then?
> Since multiple SMSM hosts are
The qcom,ipc-N properties are essentially providing a reference to a
mailbox, so allow using the mboxes property to do the same in a more
structured way.
Since multiple SMSM hosts are supported, we need to be able to provide
the correct mailbox for each host. The old qcom,ipc-N properties map to
13 matches
Mail list logo
