Hi Rob,
Thanks for the feedback. Some how our mail server appeared to filter out your
response!
> On 06/21/2012 06:50 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>
>> On 06/21/2012 02:15 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I am in the process of adding a device-tree binding for OMAP timers and
>>> I have encou
On 06/21/2012 06:50 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>
> On 06/21/2012 02:15 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I am in the process of adding a device-tree binding for OMAP timers and
>> I have encountered a scenario where ideally it would be useful to remove
>> a device-tree node at runtime.
>>
>> The s
Hi Rob, Grant,
Benoit suggested that I ask your opinion on the below.
Basically, I am trying to understand if there is any reason not to
enable OF_DYNAMIC. More details below on the exact scenario I am trying
to solve. OF_DYNAMIC seems to provide a good solution for me.
Thanks
Jon
On 06/21/2012
On 06/21/2012 02:15 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am in the process of adding a device-tree binding for OMAP timers and
> I have encountered a scenario where ideally it would be useful to remove
> a device-tree node at runtime.
>
> The scenario is this ...
>
> 1. OMAP3 devices may or ma
Hi all,
I am in the process of adding a device-tree binding for OMAP timers and
I have encountered a scenario where ideally it would be useful to remove
a device-tree node at runtime.
The scenario is this ...
1. OMAP3 devices may or may not have security features enabled. Security
enabled dev
