David Brownell wrote:
> On Friday 29 June 2007, Dmitry Krivoschekov wrote:
>> David Brownell wrote:
>>> On Thursday 28 June 2007, Rodolfo Giometti wrote:
>>>
>>>> As suggest by Leo let me propose to you my new patch for PXA27x UDC
>>>> support.
Rodolfo Giometti wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 02:53:22PM -0700, David Brownell wrote:
>> Let's start with *JUST* a driver, not trying to update everything
>> else in the USB Gadget stack so that it looks like it's designed
>> specifically to handle all of Intel's design botches related to
>> en
David Brownell wrote:
> On Thursday 28 June 2007, Rodolfo Giometti wrote:
>
>> As suggest by Leo let me propose to you my new patch for PXA27x UDC
>> support.
>>
>> Please, let me know what I have to do for kernel inclusion. :)
>
> Let's start with *JUST* a driver, not trying to update everything
>
Wolfgang Draxinger wrote:
> Typing "Linux XScale 270 or 27x" brings you a lot of pages but not an
Probably "XScale 270" is not the best word combination for this,
the exact processor name is PXA270 (formerly Intel, now Marvell).
> in depth doc/HOWTO how to compile your own kernel and make a boot
Al Boldi wrote:
> Dmitry Krivoschekov wrote:
>> Al Boldi wrote:
>>> Now, if there were only an easy way to make tmpfs persistent?
>> It would be not a tmpfs (*temporary* fs)then,
>
> Isn't everything really just temporary?
Would you like to talk about this?
N
Al Boldi wrote:
> Hugh Dickins wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 May 2007, Phillip Susi wrote:
>>> Hugh Dickins wrote:
tmpfs doesn't store its stuff in the page cache twice: that's true,
and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. But tmpfs doesn't contain any
support for rom memory: you'd have to copy
Hello Paul,
Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
>> ASIC-related code (I mean core) forms additional platform layer, so I
>> suggest
>> adding ASIC helpers to generic platform code i.e. drivers/platform.c, but
>> ASIC drivers to drivers/asic/ directory.
>
> There problem here is the same - our target ch
ian wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 20:29 +0400, Dmitry Krivoschekov wrote:
>> If you used ASIC acronym it would be more appropriate and not so
>> ambiguous.
>
> Actually, thats not bad. I'd be ok with that is SoC isnt used.
>
I'm ok with that too, i.e. very r
ian wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 17:53 +0400, Dmitry Krivoschekov wrote:
>> Hi Paul,
>
>> I think your referring to the term "SoC (system-on-chip)" is confusing
>> (at least for me). You rather consider companion chips than SoCs.
>
> A 'System' d
Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> Hello Dmitry,
>
> Tuesday, May 1, 2007, 4:53:09 PM, you wrote:
>
>> I think your referring to the term "SoC (system-on-chip)" is confusing
>> (at least for me). You rather consider companion chips than SoCs.
>
>> Yes, any chip integrating a number of controllers could be co
Hi Paul,
Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> In contemporary systems, lots of functionality oftentimes handled by various
> kinds of SoCs (system-on-chip), representing a number of deversified
> controllers packaged in one chip.
I think your referring to the term "SoC (system-on-chip)" is confusing
(at lea
11 matches
Mail list logo
