From: Mark Brown broo...@linaro.org
Rather than requiring each board to explicitly disable the SPI controllers
it is not using instead require boards to enable those that they are using.
This is less work overall since normally at most one of the controllers is
in use and avoids issues caused by
On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 04:57:01PM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote:
I'm a little surprised that I don't see removal of spi_0 on SMDK5250.
When I apply your patch to ToT Linux I still see this in
exynos5250-smdk5250.dts:
spi_0: spi@12d2 {
status = disabled;
};
Hi Kukjin,
On Monday 25 of November 2013 12:15:08 Mark Brown wrote:
From: Mark Brown broo...@linaro.org
Rather than requiring each board to explicitly disable the SPI controllers
it is not using instead require boards to enable those that they are using.
This is less work overall since
On 12/10/13 00:23, Tomasz Figa wrote:
Hi Kukjin,
Hi,
On Monday 25 of November 2013 12:15:08 Mark Brown wrote:
From: Mark Brownbroo...@linaro.org
Rather than requiring each board to explicitly disable the SPI controllers
it is not using instead require boards to enable those that they are
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Kukjin Kim kgene@samsung.com wrote:
On 12/10/13 00:23, Tomasz Figa wrote:
Hi Kukjin,
Hi,
On Monday 25 of November 2013 12:15:08 Mark Brown wrote:
From: Mark Brownbroo...@linaro.org
Rather than requiring each board to explicitly disable the SPI
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Mark Brown broo...@kernel.org wrote:
From: Mark Brown broo...@linaro.org
Rather than requiring each board to explicitly disable the SPI controllers
it is not using instead require boards to enable those that they are using.
This is less work overall since
From: Mark Brown broo...@linaro.org
Rather than requiring each board to explicitly disable the SPI controllers
it is not using instead require boards to enable those that they are using.
This is less work overall since normally at most one of the controllers is
in use and avoids issues caused by
