Hi Simon,
On 10:39-20240711, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Manorit,
>
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 at 07:15, Manorit Chawdhry wrote:
> >
> > Hi Simon,
> >
> > On 09:36-20231217, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > The existing bootph binding is defined such that properties in a
> > > subnode are also implied in the sup
Hi Manorit,
On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 at 07:15, Manorit Chawdhry wrote:
>
> Hi Simon,
>
> On 09:36-20231217, Simon Glass wrote:
> > The existing bootph binding is defined such that properties in a
> > subnode are also implied in the supernode also, as in this example:
> >
> >buttons {
> > /*
Hi Manorit,
On 7/10/24 8:15 AM, Manorit Chawdhry wrote:
Hi Simon,
On 09:36-20231217, Simon Glass wrote:
The existing bootph binding is defined such that properties in a
subnode are also implied in the supernode also, as in this example:
buttons {
/* bootph,pre-ram is implied by btn
Hi Simon,
On 09:36-20231217, Simon Glass wrote:
> The existing bootph binding is defined such that properties in a
> subnode are also implied in the supernode also, as in this example:
>
>buttons {
> /* bootph,pre-ram is implied by btn1 */
> compatible = "gpio-keys";
>
> bt
The existing bootph binding is defined such that properties in a
subnode are also implied in the supernode also, as in this example:
buttons {
/* bootph,pre-ram is implied by btn1 */
compatible = "gpio-keys";
btn1 {
bootph,pre-ram;
gpios = <&gpio_a 3 0>;
The existing bootph binding is defined such that properties in a
subnode are also implied in the supernode also, as in this example:
buttons {
/* bootph,pre-ram is implied by btn1 */
compatible = "gpio-keys";
btn1 {
bootph,pre-ram;
gpios = <&gpio_a 3 0>;
6 matches
Mail list logo
