From: Afzal Mohammed <x0148406@ti.com>
To: Daniel Mack <zonque@gmail.com>
Cc: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>, Paul Walmsley <paul@pwsan.com>,
David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@intel.com>,
Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@linux.intel.com>,
"Hunter, Jon" <jon-hunter@ti.com>,
"linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] OMAP-GPMC generic timing migration
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:56:13 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <507F92F5.6080906@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <507ECB31.8030006@gmail.com>
Hi Daniel,
On Wednesday 17 October 2012 08:43 PM, Daniel Mack wrote:
> On 17.10.2012 07:42, Afzal Mohammed wrote:
>> I doubt whether auxdata would help here, it seems using
>> compatible field alone would help in deciding relevant
>> custom timing routine. Whether we want this kind of
>> peripheral knowledge in gpmc driver instead of using
>> generic timing routine has to be decided though.
> Another thing that might be worth thinking about is that apart from the
> GPMC host controller and the peripherals, there could be other
> components like level shifters or series resistors on the board that
> limit the maximum speed of transactions. So in fact we might be better
> off storing all that timing details in the DT, as they are in fact
> highly application specific.
Yes, making it future proof for these kind of scenarios was one
of the reason's that initially triggered generic timing path.
Regards
Afzal
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: x0148406@ti.com (Afzal Mohammed)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 0/4] OMAP-GPMC generic timing migration
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:56:13 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <507F92F5.6080906@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <507ECB31.8030006@gmail.com>
Hi Daniel,
On Wednesday 17 October 2012 08:43 PM, Daniel Mack wrote:
> On 17.10.2012 07:42, Afzal Mohammed wrote:
>> I doubt whether auxdata would help here, it seems using
>> compatible field alone would help in deciding relevant
>> custom timing routine. Whether we want this kind of
>> peripheral knowledge in gpmc driver instead of using
>> generic timing routine has to be decided though.
> Another thing that might be worth thinking about is that apart from the
> GPMC host controller and the peripherals, there could be other
> components like level shifters or series resistors on the board that
> limit the maximum speed of transactions. So in fact we might be better
> off storing all that timing details in the DT, as they are in fact
> highly application specific.
Yes, making it future proof for these kind of scenarios was one
of the reason's that initially triggered generic timing path.
Regards
Afzal
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-18 5:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-05 16:00 [PATCH 0/4] OMAP-GPMC generic timing migration Afzal Mohammed
2012-10-05 16:00 ` Afzal Mohammed
2012-10-05 16:01 ` [PATCH 1/4] ARM: OMAP2+: gpmc: generic timing calculation Afzal Mohammed
2012-10-05 16:01 ` Afzal Mohammed
2012-10-05 16:01 ` [PATCH 2/4] ARM: OMAP2+: onenand: " Afzal Mohammed
2012-10-05 16:01 ` Afzal Mohammed
2012-10-05 16:01 ` [PATCH 3/4] ARM: OMAP2+: smc91x: " Afzal Mohammed
2012-10-05 16:01 ` Afzal Mohammed
2012-10-05 16:01 ` [PATCH 4/4] ARM: OMAP2+: tusb6010: " Afzal Mohammed
2012-10-05 16:01 ` Afzal Mohammed
2012-10-09 3:01 ` [PATCH 0/4] OMAP-GPMC generic timing migration Tony Lindgren
2012-10-09 3:01 ` Tony Lindgren
2012-10-09 12:59 ` Afzal Mohammed
2012-10-09 12:59 ` Afzal Mohammed
2012-10-11 11:45 ` Daniel Mack
2012-10-11 11:45 ` Daniel Mack
2012-10-11 12:47 ` Mohammed, Afzal
2012-10-11 12:47 ` Mohammed, Afzal
2012-10-11 14:47 ` Tony Lindgren
2012-10-11 14:47 ` Tony Lindgren
2012-10-15 12:41 ` Mohammed, Afzal
2012-10-15 12:41 ` Mohammed, Afzal
2012-10-15 16:01 ` Tony Lindgren
2012-10-15 16:01 ` Tony Lindgren
2012-10-16 6:56 ` Afzal Mohammed
2012-10-16 6:56 ` Afzal Mohammed
2012-10-17 5:42 ` Afzal Mohammed
2012-10-17 5:42 ` Afzal Mohammed
2012-10-17 15:13 ` Daniel Mack
2012-10-17 15:13 ` Daniel Mack
2012-10-17 15:53 ` Tony Lindgren
2012-10-17 15:53 ` Tony Lindgren
2012-10-18 5:26 ` Afzal Mohammed [this message]
2012-10-18 5:26 ` Afzal Mohammed
2012-10-19 15:34 ` Afzal Mohammed
2012-10-19 15:34 ` Afzal Mohammed
2012-10-22 19:51 ` Daniel Mack
2012-10-22 19:51 ` Daniel Mack
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=507F92F5.6080906@ti.com \
--to=x0148406@ti.com \
--cc=David.Woodhouse@intel.com \
--cc=artem.bityutskiy@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jon-hunter@ti.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul@pwsan.com \
--cc=tony@atomide.com \
--cc=zonque@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.