[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230922-unclothed-bottom-5531329f9724@spud>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:22:19 +0100
From: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
To: yang tylor <tylor_yang@...ax.corp-partner.google.com>
Cc: dmitry.torokhov@...il.com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
jikos@...nel.org, benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com,
linux-input@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
poyuan_chang@...ax.corp-partner.google.com, hbarnor@...omium.org,
"jingyliang@...omium.org" <jingyliang@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] dt-bindings: input: Introduce Himax HID-over-SPI
device
On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 03:56:25PM +0800, yang tylor wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 7:09 PM Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 05:31:29PM +0800, yang tylor wrote:
> > > The behavior of "himax,boot_time_fw_upgrade" seems not stable and
> > > should be removed. "himax,fw_in_flash", I use the kernel config for
> > > user to select.
> >
> > That seems like a bad idea, we want to be able to build one kernel that
> > works for all hardware at the same time.
> >
> I see, so I should take that back?
> I'll explain more about it.
Are there particular ICs where the firmware would always be in flash and
others where it would never be? Or is this a choice made by the board or
system designer?
Thanks,
Conor.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists