On Monday 23 March 2015, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann writes:
>
> ... removed people not concerned by pxa story ...
>
> >> As for XIP support, I don't have a clear view if it's a requirement for
> >> multiplatform nor if it works in these builds.
> >
> > It would be nice to not have to
Arnd Bergmann writes:
... removed people not concerned by pxa story ...
>> As for XIP support, I don't have a clear view if it's a requirement for
>> multiplatform nor if it works in these builds.
>
> It would be nice to not have to support both options: if we put pxa into
> ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM,
On Monday 23 March 2015, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann writes:
> > On Saturday 21 March 2015, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
> > as much as I like this series, I think you still have a long way to go
> > before
> > PXA can really be multiplatform. Other parts that would need to be solved
> > inclu
Arnd Bergmann writes:
> On Saturday 21 March 2015, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
>> It is as well one of the last steps (or so I hope) for pxa architure to be
>> part
>> of the multiplatform ARM architecture, and at the same time keep its legacy
>> platforms operational. It will kill arch/arm/plat-pxa/d
On Saturday 21 March 2015, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
> It is as well one of the last steps (or so I hope) for pxa architure to be
> part
> of the multiplatform ARM architecture, and at the same time keep its legacy
> platforms operational. It will kill arch/arm/plat-pxa/dma.c in the long term.
>
Hi
Hi Vinod,
This serie introduces a new driver for Marvell pxa architectures. There is a
full rationale explanation in patch 3/5 on why mmp_pdma was not reused nor
patched incrementally.
This new driver provides all the capabilities to port all the drivers of pxa
architecture to dmaengine. It was t
6 matches
Mail list logo
