On 03/14/2013 05:00 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>
>
> On 03/14/2013 10:58 AM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
>> On 03/14/2013 04:50 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>>
>>> On 03/14/2013 10:45 AM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
On 03/11/2013 06:56 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>
> On 03/09/2013 06:42 AM, Ezequiel Garcia wrote
On 03/14/2013 10:58 AM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
> On 03/14/2013 04:50 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>
>> On 03/14/2013 10:45 AM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
>>> On 03/11/2013 06:56 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
On 03/09/2013 06:42 AM, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Javier Martin
On 03/14/2013 04:50 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>
> On 03/14/2013 10:45 AM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
>> On 03/11/2013 06:56 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>>
>>> On 03/09/2013 06:42 AM, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 1
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>> Yes, I full agree with that as well. The size should be purely HW
>> related. So we should not take any assumption about the page size /
>> alignment.
>
> Ok, what is best to use? The size from hwmod structures or the size from
> the documenta
On 03/14/2013 10:45 AM, Benoit Cousson wrote:
> On 03/11/2013 06:56 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>
>> On 03/09/2013 06:42 AM, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas
>>> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>
> Yes you are
On 03/11/2013 06:56 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>
> On 03/09/2013 06:42 AM, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
Yes you are correct. In general, I have been trying to stay some-wh
On 03/09/2013 06:42 AM, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes you are correct. In general, I have been trying to stay some-what
>>> consistent with what hwmod was doing as this
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>
>> Yes you are correct. In general, I have been trying to stay some-what
>> consistent with what hwmod was doing as this was being auto-generated by
>> some hardware design spe
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>
> On 03/08/2013 02:25 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>> Add the device-tree node for GPMC on OMAP2, OMAP4 and OMAP5 devices.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jon Hunter
>>> ---
>>> arch/arm/boo
On 03/08/2013 02:25 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>> Add the device-tree node for GPMC on OMAP2, OMAP4 and OMAP5 devices.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jon Hunter
>> ---
>> arch/arm/boot/dts/omap2420.dtsi | 11 +++
>> arch/arm/boot/dts/
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
> Add the device-tree node for GPMC on OMAP2, OMAP4 and OMAP5 devices.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jon Hunter
> ---
> arch/arm/boot/dts/omap2420.dtsi | 11 +++
> arch/arm/boot/dts/omap2430.dtsi | 11 +++
> arch/arm/boot/dts/omap4.dtsi
Add the device-tree node for GPMC on OMAP2, OMAP4 and OMAP5 devices.
Signed-off-by: Jon Hunter
---
arch/arm/boot/dts/omap2420.dtsi | 11 +++
arch/arm/boot/dts/omap2430.dtsi | 11 +++
arch/arm/boot/dts/omap4.dtsi| 11 +++
arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi| 11 ++
12 matches
Mail list logo