On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 10:03:40PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> wrote:
>
> > Well, my understanding is that there's DT patches around for Versatile.
>
> Is there? There is some in-tree stuff, but haven't seen any other
> sign of patches
Daniel Lezcano writes:
> At init time, check the powerdomains lookup is successful otherwise
> exit the cpuidle driver init function with -ENODEV like what is done for the
> omap3 cpuidle driver.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
> Reviewed-by: Jean Pihet
Thanks, applying to my for_3.5/cleanup
On Friday 04 May 2012, Christian Robottom Reis wrote:
> Isn't there work by Pawel that adds support for more of the Versatile
> platform? My quick searching finds at least:
>
> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.i2c/10143
> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 10:03:40PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> wrote:
>
> > Well, my understanding is that there's DT patches around for Versatile.
>
> Is there? There is some in-tree stuff, but haven't seen any other
> sign of patches
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> Well, my understanding is that there's DT patches around for Versatile.
Is there? There is some in-tree stuff, but haven't seen any other
sign of patches.
Having looked a bit at that I get the impression that this DT code has
bee
On Thursday 03 May 2012, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> I don't think that enforcing DT only in multiplatform kernels will speed
> up porting to DT. As a platform maintainer I am interested in building
> multiplatform Kernels, but our customers are mostly uninterested in
> this. They probably disable other
On Friday 04 May 2012, Wookey wrote:
> > This is very important because distros are obviously the primary consumer
> > of multiplatform builds (aside from build testing). The goal should very
> > much be to reduce the number of distinct kernels that folks like debian,
> > fedora or cyanogenmod have
On Friday 04 May 2012, Rob Herring wrote:
> On 05/04/2012 07:20 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Thursday 03 May 2012, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > My plan is to have multiplatform kernels in parallel with what we have now,
> > so we can avoid breaking working machines but also play with mul
These two patches are coming from the series I previously
sent for the cpuidle OMAP3/4 cleanups.
The first one, move the powerdomain lookup check in the init
function, the second one fix the linkage error, when the
CONFIG_PM is not set while CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is. Omap's Kconfig
has been modified to
Define a CPU_IDLE section in the makefile, declare the functions in
the header files conforming to the kernel coding rules and remove the
'define's in the C files.
CONFIG_PM is enabled when CPU_IDLE is enabled because the cpuidle drivers
use some functions from the pm subsystem.
Signed-off-by: Da
At init time, check the powerdomains lookup is successful otherwise
exit the cpuidle driver init function with -ENODEV like what is done for the
omap3 cpuidle driver.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano
Reviewed-by: Jean Pihet
---
arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle34xx.c |3 +++
1 files changed, 3 inser
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 11:39:30AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> Many of the headers are simply platform_data structs which may still be
> needed on DT platforms, but could be moved elsewhere.
Those should be in include/linux/platform.
> >> Then there's also the problem of uncompress.h. The last p
On 05/04/2012 07:20 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 03 May 2012, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> I'm basing my comments off mach-zynq.
>
> It's a different question because mach-zynq is already DT-only, but we
> can also discuss this for a bit.
>
>> How about we take the following steps
Hi
Can you let me know which version of libdrm-omap1 package you are using?
The libdrm - 2.4.32-1ubuntu1+ti2.0 available into the trunk PPA shall have
all the latest fixes.
Regards,
*Xavier Boudet -* Texas Instruments France
Linux SW Integration - Platform Enablement Organization
Office: +33 4
+++ Arnd Bergmann [2012-05-04 15:17 +]:
> On Friday 04 May 2012, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 03:20:57PM +0100, Wookey wrote:
> > > Debian tries very hard not to support anything in the kernel that
> > > upstream don't support in the kernel because otherwise
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Christian Robottom Reis wrote:
> > any chance you can use current upstream libdrm
> > (http://cgit.freedesktop.org/mesa/drm)?
> >
> > there was a fix for this issue.. I guess what you are using has an
> > earlier version of libdrm_omap patches compared to what is up
On Friday 04 May 2012, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 03:20:57PM +0100, Wookey wrote:
> > Debian tries very hard not to support anything in the kernel that
> > upstream don't support in the kernel because otherwise it's way too
> > much work. The current list of suppli
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 03:20:57PM +0100, Wookey wrote:
> Debian tries very hard not to support anything in the kernel that
> upstream don't support in the kernel because otherwise it's way too
> much work. The current list of supplied arm kernels is:
>
> iop32x (ThecusN2100, intel SS4000, GLAN ta
+++ Deepak Saxena [2012-05-03 22:38 -0700]:
> I'm of the opinion that we support DT only platforms for
> multi-platform but this is based on the approach of only caring for
> multi-platform for newer systems and not worrying too much for legacy
> HW.I don't expect distros (the
> main users of
All,
not to muddy the waters, but think about where we'd like to be in the
future - able to build support for several platforms into one kernel.
Device tree is one of the mechanisms to help achieve that as it helps us
move away from code laboriously adding the same devices in per platform
w
On 15:04 Thu 03 May , Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 01:50:35PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I've been discussing multiplatform kernels with a few people recently,
> > and we will have a lot of discussion sessions about this at Linaro
> > Conn
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 01:50:35PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> My feeling is that we should just mandate DT booting for multiplatform
>> kernels, because it significantly reduces the combinatorial space
>> at compile time, avoid
On 13:50 Thu 03 May , Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I've been discussing multiplatform kernels with a few people recently,
> and we will have a lot of discussion sessions about this at Linaro
> Connect in Hong Kong.
>
> One question that came up repeatedly is whether we should suppo
Russell King - ARM Linux writes:
Hi,
> On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 01:50:35PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> My feeling is that we should just mandate DT booting for multiplatform
>> kernels, because it significantly reduces the combinatorial space
>> at compile time, avoids a lot of legacy board fi
On Friday 04 May 2012, Arnaud Patard wrote:
> > On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 01:50:35PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> My feeling is that we should just mandate DT booting for multiplatform
> >> kernels, because it significantly reduces the combinatorial space
> >> at compile time, avoids a lot of leg
On Thursday 03 May 2012, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> I'm basing my comments off mach-zynq.
It's a different question because mach-zynq is already DT-only, but we
can also discuss this for a bit.
> How about we take the following steps towards it?
>
> 1. create arch/arm/include/mach/ which
On Thursday 03 May 2012, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 01:50:35PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > My feeling is that we should just mandate DT booting for multiplatform
> > kernels, because it significantly reduces the combinatorial space
> > at compile time, avoids a lo
Facilitator :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facilitator
I know I am adding my 2 cents a little late, but there I dropped it in the
collection plate.
Amber
On 25 April 2012 11:40, Jesse Barker wrote:
> Funny, I took champion to be the equivalent of the sponsor of a
> requirement (i.e. to champ
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 10:38:15PM -0700, Deepak Saxena wrote:
> I'm of the opinion that we support DT only platforms for
> multi-platform but this is based on the approach of only caring for
> multi-platform for newer systems and not worrying too much for legacy
> HW.
You do realise that you're a
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 11:31:13PM -0700, Deepak Saxena wrote:
> On 3 May 2012 07:04, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 01:50:35PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> Hi everyone,
> >>
> >> I've been discussing multiplatform kernels with a few people recently,
> >> and we wi
30 matches
Mail list logo
