133821974179_520160007946Rob Emanuele
Hi Haavard, Id be happy to reintegrate my changes to this back into the Atmel driver once I get it working correct on the at91. Do you have the equipment to give my changes a try? Converting my #d

 
103720074137_505360007371Rob Emanuele
Rob Emanuele : Greetings, This patch creates a new AT91 Multimedia Card Interface (MCI) driver that supports using both MCI slots at the same time. Im looking for others to test this patc

 
186228824413_539360007492Harikrishna Donti
Signed-off-by: Michael Roth <mroth@xxxxxxxxx Cc: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@xxxxxxxxx --- arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/board.h | 1 + drivers/mmc/host/at91_mci.c | 4 +

 
138827734618_579960007152Harikrishna Donti
Harikrishna Donti wrote: I have taken enough care in my driver not to call spi_sync() more than once at a time by a mutex lock. Still I dont understand why the overrun would occur. Im unfa

 
191524904060_540860007035Valentin Longchamp
Harikrishna Donti wrote: When I start an application which uses UART1-5 (i.e., data tx,rx in UART which also uses DMA) then I get SPI overrun errors. So, seems like there is some kind of DMA

 
175529084232_593560007830Valentin Longchamp
Harikrishna Donti wrote: When I start an application which uses UART1-5 (i.e., data tx,rx in UART which also uses DMA) then I get SPI overrun errors. So, seems like there is some kind of DMA

 
188021454838_501760007806Paulius Zaleckas
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 04:46:21PM +0200, Valentin Longchamp wrote: changes since v1: we now check if the parent configuration bit was changed since reset and change the parent when needed.

 
138920604687_580260007405Paulius Zaleckas
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 04:46:21PM +0200, Valentin Longchamp wrote: changes since v1: we now check if the parent configuration bit was changed since reset and change the parent when needed.

 
129428424177_591360007487Russell King ARM Li
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 05:07:34PM +0300, Paulius Zaleckas wrote: Please pull the following minor fixes/changes (diff attached inline): This appears to have missed Linus pull of my tree, so Im goi

 
106425554977_512460007546Russell King ARM Li
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 05:07:34PM +0300, Paulius Zaleckas wrote: Please pull the following minor fixes/changes (diff attached inline): This appears to have missed Linus pull of my tree, so Im goi

 
116027184453_539260007561Russell King ARM Li
Hi All, I have been trying to change the cache policy to write allocate for both user and kernel memory (i.e normal memory). I changed the cachepolicy variable in arch/arm/mm/mmu.c, but seems like

 
122225324707_506060007906Russell King ARM Li
Hi All, I have been trying to change the cache policy to write allocate for both user and kernel memory (i.e normal memory). I changed the cachepolicy variable in arch/arm/mm/mmu.c, but seems like

 
186629394966_555360007418luan dinh
----- Original Message ----- From: "Russell King - ARM Linux" <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Cachepolicy question On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 06:46:31PM +0530, Hemanth V wrote:

 
195920344259_513560007900luan dinh
----- Original Message ----- From: "Russell King - ARM Linux" <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Cachepolicy question On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 06:46:31PM +0530, Hemanth V wrote:

 
162320114455_559960007418Grant Likely
Hi, All Currently, ARM linux uses mach-type to figure out platform. But mach-type could not handle variants well and it doesnt tell the kernel about info about attached peripherals. The device-tree

 
114522964135_559860007787Grant Likely
Hi, All Currently, ARM linux uses mach-type to figure out platform. But mach-type could not handle variants well and it doesnt tell the kernel about info about attached peripherals. The device-tree

 
115929114319_586660007869Robert Schwebel
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: Signed-off-by: janboe <yuan-bo.ye@xxxxxxxxxxxx Heeheehe, This is Fantastic. Yes, I agree. Thanks for

 
177128364807_573760007547Robert Schwebel
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: Signed-off-by: janboe <yuan-bo.ye@xxxxxxxxxxxx Heeheehe, This is Fantastic. Yes, I agree. Thanks for

 
115523474581_541460007527Robert Schwebel
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Robert Schwebel <r.schwebel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: Seriously: oftree in general is a good idea. Just that it doesnt work in practise. The concept has some seri

 
131421054538_577060007675Robert Schwebel
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Robert Schwebel <r.schwebel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: Seriously: oftree in general is a good idea. Just that it doesnt work in practise. The concept has some seri

 
118728504971_532260007659Robert Schwebel
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Robert Schwebel <r.schwebel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: That being said, the problems we have had are the reason why it is *not* recommended to hard link the dev

 
110926074569_542960007540Robert Schwebel
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Robert Schwebel <r.schwebel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: That being said, the problems we have had are the reason why it is *not* recommended to hard link the dev

 
129722434376_510360007765Grant Likely
From: Robert Schwebel <r.schwebel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 01:48:01 +0200 My impression is that oftree only works in a perfect world. But we dont have one, so the fundamental de

 
165021344111_523160007595Grant Likely
From: Robert Schwebel <r.schwebel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 01:48:01 +0200 My impression is that oftree only works in a perfect world. But we dont have one, so the fundamental de

 
175828644700_529660007404David Miller
Robert Schwebel wrote: The oftree by design wants to be a complete hardware description. As you mention above, there are cases where you *nevertheless* need ad-hoc information about things *not

 
197128204254_594260007702David Miller
Robert Schwebel wrote: The oftree by design wants to be a complete hardware description. As you mention above, there are cases where you *nevertheless* need ad-hoc information about things *not

 
160022524308_516960007781David Miller
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 06:58:24PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: Robert Schwebel wrote: The oftree by design wants to be a complete hardware description. As you mention above, there are cases wher

 
170929784023_508460007003David Miller
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 06:58:24PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: Robert Schwebel wrote: The oftree by design wants to be a complete hardware description. As you mention above, there are cases wher

 
184927314138_596160007688Grant Likely
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 05:15:25PM -0700, David Miller wrote: From: Robert Schwebel <r.schwebel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx It works badly for corner cases, and embedded land is full of it. The eff

 
155627204552_525560007184Grant Likely
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 05:15:25PM -0700, David Miller wrote: From: Robert Schwebel <r.schwebel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx It works badly for corner cases, and embedded land is full of it. The eff

 
166029874004_591460007147Benjamin Herrenschmi
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 04:32:40PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: and half-assed example of this). However, when it comes to complex configurations that cannot be easily described, Im all for using

 
161525284399_592460007079Benjamin Herrenschmi
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 04:32:40PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: and half-assed example of this). However, when it comes to complex configurations that cannot be easily described, Im all for using

 
170424054057_572860007138Mark Brown
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 07:52:46PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: Sure. My only big concern with it is that it compeltely sidesteps clocking decisions so theres a lot of codecs its

 
173223394870_587060007832Mark Brown
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 07:52:46PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: Sure. My only big concern with it is that it compeltely sidesteps clocking decisions so theres a lot of codecs its

 
155828564551_510960007568Mark Brown
1. implementers of the clock API which have not been subject to my rigorous review abuse it to the point of making the API essentially useless, and that causes Mark problems. If thats a proble

 
129327714554_529860007482Mark Brown
1. implementers of the clock API which have not been subject to my rigorous review abuse it to the point of making the API essentially useless, and that causes Mark problems. If thats a proble

 
144523004010_584560007707Wolfgang Denk
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Robert Schwebel <r.schwebel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 06:58:24PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: Robert Schwebel wrote: The oftree by design

 
192429284112_598260007602Wolfgang Denk
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Robert Schwebel <r.schwebel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 06:58:24PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: Robert Schwebel wrote: The oftree by design

 
111923864942_598960007241Robert Schwebel
From: Wolfgang Denk <wd@xxxxxxx Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 11:51:26 +0200 Lost business. D*mn... [Maybe this explains Roberts reluctance?] ROFL -------------------------------------------------

 
182028144097_537160007208Robert Schwebel
From: Wolfgang Denk <wd@xxxxxxx Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 11:51:26 +0200 Lost business. D*mn... [Maybe this explains Roberts reluctance?] ROFL -------------------------------------------------

 
193922164979_549360007663Robert Schwebel
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 6:13 AM, Robert Schwebel <r.schwebel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 11:51:26AM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: True. From a commercial point of view this i

 
197629604963_598660007186Grant Likely
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 02:07:07AM +0200, Robert Schwebel wrote: On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 06:58:24PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: Robert Schwebel wrote: The oftree by design wants to be a compl

 
169227294113_580560007769Grant Likely
Dear Robert Schwebel, In message <20090528000707.GR6805@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx you wrote: Until now, oftree has created more problems than it has solved for us. The idea works fine for well-known

 
140728294155_534860007411Alexander Clouter
-----Original Message----- From: devicetree-discuss-bounces+stephen.neuendorffer=xilinx.com@xxxxxxxxxx [ rel="nofollow" mailto:devicetree- mailto:devicetree- discuss-bounces+stephen.neuen

 
159026374225_568760007147Alexander Clouter
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Alexander Clouter <alex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: In gmane.linux.kernel Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Rober

 
189529474364_587360007879Scott Wood
"Robert" == Robert Schwebel <r.schwebel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes: Hi, Robert - The whole concept is based on the assumption that bindings Robert are defined *once*, then never

 
153624154839_549860007643Grant Likely
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:23:29AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: That removes the ability to use the device tree to pass information from the bootloader, such as MAC addresses and clock frequencies.

 
168520924371_579860007081Jon Smirl
Russell King wrote: On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:23:29AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: That removes the ability to use the device tree to pass information from the bootloader, such as MAC addresse

 
156623034910_572260007727JeanChristophe PLAGN
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 03:13:55PM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote: On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Scott Wood <scottwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: Im not talking about platform specific code, Im talkin

 
113222414364_535860007372JeanChristophe PLAGN
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: On 20:21 Wed 27 May     , Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 03