On 04/18/2013 04:19 PM, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> On 04/18/2013 04:15 PM, Arnd Bergmann :
>> On Thursday 18 April 2013, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
>>
This patch blindly removes the warning and changes the
at91sam9263 to use the same code at at91sam9g45, which
may or may not be the right solut
On Thursday 18 April 2013, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> > Maybe you can make sure it actually works and send it to Daniel to apply on
> > top of his other patches?
>
> Well, as Daniel's patches are still under construction, I stack this one
> on the at91-3.10-soc branch and let Daniel rebase his work on
On 04/18/2013 04:15 PM, Arnd Bergmann :
> On Thursday 18 April 2013, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
>
>>> This patch blindly removes the warning and changes the
>>> at91sam9263 to use the same code at at91sam9g45, which
>>> may or may not be the right solution. If it is not,
>>> maybe someone could provide
On Thursday 18 April 2013, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> > This patch blindly removes the warning and changes the
> > at91sam9263 to use the same code at at91sam9g45, which
> > may or may not be the right solution. If it is not,
> > maybe someone could provide a better fix.
>
> Maybe you can remove this
I come back to this for AT91
On 01/25/2013 11:44 PM, Arnd Bergmann :
> For the past three years, we have had a #warning in
> mach-at91 about the sdram_selfrefresh_enable or
> at91sam9_standby functions possibly not working on
> at91sam9263. In the meantime a function was added
> to do the right t
For the past three years, we have had a #warning in
mach-at91 about the sdram_selfrefresh_enable or
at91sam9_standby functions possibly not working on
at91sam9263. In the meantime a function was added
to do the right thing on at91sam9g45, which looks like
it should also work on '9263.
This patch b
On Friday 25 January 2013 16:42:19 Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> On 14:14 Fri 25 Jan , Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > For the past three years, we have had a #warning in
> > mach-at91 about the sdram_selfrefresh_enable or
> > at91sam9_standby functions possibly not working on
> > at91sam9
On 14:14 Fri 25 Jan , Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> For the past three years, we have had a #warning in
> mach-at91 about the sdram_selfrefresh_enable or
> at91sam9_standby functions possibly not working on
> at91sam9263. In the meantime a function was added
> to do the right thing on at91sam9g45, whi
For the past three years, we have had a #warning in
mach-at91 about the sdram_selfrefresh_enable or
at91sam9_standby functions possibly not working on
at91sam9263. In the meantime a function was added
to do the right thing on at91sam9g45, which looks like
it should also work on '9263.
This patch b
9 matches
Mail list logo
