Re: "memory" binding issues

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




> So where have we gotten on this?
> 
> It seems we are in agreement that:
> 1. reserve memory should be probably be described in nodes
> 2. it should be pulled out of the memory node and put at root level
> 3. Use reg to describe the memory regions for a given node
> 
> Now to figure out about how to convey usage information for the region and possibly driver association.  I agree with Ben that there are probably cases that an associated device node may not exist so that shouldn't be a hard requirement.
> 
> - k

So I think we should revert the patches as we don't seem to be getting anywhere both on discussion or code updates and the v3.12-rc's keep moving along.

- k

-- 
Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree Compilter]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux PCI Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]
  Powered by Linux