From: Stephen Warren <hidden> Date: 2011-09-20 16:46:37
The bindings were recently updated to have separate properties for each
type of GPIO. Update the Device Tree source to match that.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <redacted>
Acked-by: Olof Johansson <redacted>
---
I'd previously sent these to Grant assuming they'd go in his dt/next branch,
but perhaps these should go in through Arnd's arm-soc next/dt branch?
arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra-harmony.dts | 12 ++++++------
arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra-seaboard.dts | 6 +++---
2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
From: Stephen Warren <hidden> Date: 2011-09-20 16:46:46
For Seaboard's internal eMMC, this makes the difference between a
5.5MB/s and 10.2MB/s transfer rate. On Harmony, there wasn't any
measurable difference on my cheap/slow ~2MB/s card.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <redacted>
---
arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra-harmony.dts | 1 +
arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra-seaboard.dts | 4 ++++
2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
From: Grant Likely <hidden> Date: 2011-09-20 17:48:11
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:46:26AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
For Seaboard's internal eMMC, this makes the difference between a
5.5MB/s and 10.2MB/s transfer rate. On Harmony, there wasn't any
measurable difference on my cheap/slow ~2MB/s card.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <redacted>
From: Grant Likely <hidden> Date: 2011-09-20 17:42:35
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:46:25AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
The bindings were recently updated to have separate properties for each
type of GPIO. Update the Device Tree source to match that.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <redacted>
Acked-by: Olof Johansson <redacted>
Acked-by: Grant Likely <redacted>
---
I'd previously sent these to Grant assuming they'd go in his dt/next branch,
but perhaps these should go in through Arnd's arm-soc next/dt branch?
On Tuesday 20 September 2011, Stephen Warren wrote:
The bindings were recently updated to have separate properties for each
type of GPIO. Update the Device Tree source to match that.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <redacted>
Acked-by: Olof Johansson <redacted>
---
I'd previously sent these to Grant assuming they'd go in his dt/next branch,
but perhaps these should go in through Arnd's arm-soc next/dt branch?
Which tree has the update that changed the bindings? I think it should
go into the same one.
If it's already upstream, I can take it into the fixes branch.
Arnd
From: Stephen Warren <hidden> Date: 2011-09-20 17:59:48
Arnd Bergmann wrote at Tuesday, September 20, 2011 11:43 AM:
On Tuesday 20 September 2011, Stephen Warren wrote:
quoted
The bindings were recently updated to have separate properties for each
type of GPIO. Update the Device Tree source to match that.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <redacted>
Acked-by: Olof Johansson <redacted>
---
I'd previously sent these to Grant assuming they'd go in his dt/next branch,
but perhaps these should go in through Arnd's arm-soc next/dt branch?
Which tree has the update that changed the bindings? I think it should
go into the same one.
If it's already upstream, I can take it into the fixes branch.
Chris applied them to the mmc-next tree:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/cjb/mmc.git
which appears to be temporarily at:
git://dev.laptop.org/users/cjb/mmc
--
nvpublic
From: Grant Likely <hidden> Date: 2011-09-20 18:07:37
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 07:43:29PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 20 September 2011, Stephen Warren wrote:
quoted
The bindings were recently updated to have separate properties for each
type of GPIO. Update the Device Tree source to match that.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <redacted>
Acked-by: Olof Johansson <redacted>
---
I'd previously sent these to Grant assuming they'd go in his dt/next branch,
but perhaps these should go in through Arnd's arm-soc next/dt branch?
Which tree has the update that changed the bindings? I think it should
go into the same one.
If it's already upstream, I can take it into the fixes branch.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 07:43:29PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
quoted
On Tuesday 20 September 2011, Stephen Warren wrote:
quoted
The bindings were recently updated to have separate properties for each
type of GPIO. Update the Device Tree source to match that.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <redacted>
Acked-by: Olof Johansson <redacted>
---
I'd previously sent these to Grant assuming they'd go in his dt/next branch,
but perhaps these should go in through Arnd's arm-soc next/dt branch?
Which tree has the update that changed the bindings? I think it should
go into the same one.
If it's already upstream, I can take it into the fixes branch.
Already upstream
Ok, I see. I've applied both patches to the fixes branch and will send
it out with the next pull request for 3.1 to Linus then.
Thanks,
Arnd
On Tuesday 20 September 2011, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 20 September 2011, Grant Likely wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 07:43:29PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
quoted
On Tuesday 20 September 2011, Stephen Warren wrote:
quoted
The bindings were recently updated to have separate properties for each
type of GPIO. Update the Device Tree source to match that.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <redacted>
Acked-by: Olof Johansson <redacted>
---
I'd previously sent these to Grant assuming they'd go in his dt/next branch,
but perhaps these should go in through Arnd's arm-soc next/dt branch?
Which tree has the update that changed the bindings? I think it should
go into the same one.
If it's already upstream, I can take it into the fixes branch.
Already upstream
Ok, I see. I've applied both patches to the fixes branch and will send
it out with the next pull request for 3.1 to Linus then.
Sorry, I just noticed that the second patch is not a bug fix, so I took it out
again and kept only patch 1/2 in the fixes branch for 3.1.
Should I take the other one as well? It's probably better to let that
go the proper way through the tegra tree for 3.2, right?
Arnd
From: Olof Johansson <hidden> Date: 2011-09-20 21:39:09
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Arnd Bergmann [off-list ref] wrote:
On Tuesday 20 September 2011, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
quoted
On Tuesday 20 September 2011, Grant Likely wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 07:43:29PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
quoted
On Tuesday 20 September 2011, Stephen Warren wrote:
quoted
The bindings were recently updated to have separate properties for each
type of GPIO. Update the Device Tree source to match that.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <redacted>
Acked-by: Olof Johansson <redacted>
---
I'd previously sent these to Grant assuming they'd go in his dt/next branch,
but perhaps these should go in through Arnd's arm-soc next/dt branch?
Which tree has the update that changed the bindings? I think it should
go into the same one.
If it's already upstream, I can take it into the fixes branch.
Already upstream
Ok, I see. I've applied both patches to the fixes branch and will send
it out with the next pull request for 3.1 to Linus then.
Sorry, I just noticed that the second patch is not a bug fix, so I took it out
again and kept only patch 1/2 in the fixes branch for 3.1.
Should I take the other one as well? It's probably better to let that
go the proper way through the tegra tree for 3.2, right?
Given that you have a public tree right now, and I don't (since
kernel.org is down), please feel free to start a tegra/for-3.2 branch
for me and apply it there. I'll base further work on top of that if
needed.
(There also aren't a whole lot of other patches queued for 3.2 right now).
-Olof
On Tuesday 20 September 2011, Olof Johansson wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Arnd Bergmann [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Should I take the other one as well? It's probably better to let that
go the proper way through the tegra tree for 3.2, right?
Given that you have a public tree right now, and I don't (since
kernel.org is down), please feel free to start a tegra/for-3.2 branch
for me and apply it there. I'll base further work on top of that if
needed.
(There also aren't a whole lot of other patches queued for 3.2 right now).
Ok, I've put it into the next/fixes branch now, so it will be in 3.2.
Thanks,
Arnd