On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 07:23:30PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:35:06AM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > ARM and the sub-architectures is already confusing I don't think we need
> > to start compounding the problem by allowing random whatever-you-want
> > sub-d
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 11:51:34AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Daniel Walker writes:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:12:03AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> >> Daniel Walker writes:
> >>
> >>
> >> No. The idea behind splitting them is to allow current platforms with
> >> active maintainers to
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:35:06AM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> ARM and the sub-architectures is already confusing I don't think we need
> to start compounding the problem by allowing random whatever-you-want
> sub-directories from every sub-architecture.
Confusing?
I'm not sure about that. It'
Daniel Walker writes:
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:12:03AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> Daniel Walker writes:
>>
>>
>> No. The idea behind splitting them is to allow current platforms with
>> active maintainers to progress without being held back. The older
>> platforms can stay and have an
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:12:03AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Daniel Walker writes:
>
>
> No. The idea behind splitting them is to allow current platforms with
> active maintainers to progress without being held back. The older
> platforms can stay and have an opportunity to modernize.
>
>
Daniel Walker writes:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 04:08:27PM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> Olof Johansson writes:
>>
>> > I would be very happy to take more code for the older Qualcomm chipset
>> > to enable full functionality for them, but it's been my impression
>> > that far from all that is n
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 08:53:58AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 5:07 AM, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:19:30PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> >> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Daniel Walker wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 05:36:58PM -0700, O
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 5:07 AM, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:19:30PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Daniel Walker wrote:
>> > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 05:36:58PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Daniel Walke
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:19:30PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 05:36:58PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> >> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Daniel Walker wrote:
> >>
> >> > So the current users of those platform
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 05:36:58PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Daniel Walker wrote:
>>
>> > So the current users of those platforms are, what SOL ?
>>
>> What users? Show me one.
>
> What am I chop liver
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 05:36:58PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Daniel Walker wrote:
>
> > So the current users of those platforms are, what SOL ?
>
> What users? Show me one.
>
What am I chop liver ?
Daniel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Daniel Walker wrote:
> So the current users of those platforms are, what SOL ?
What users? Show me one.
-Olof
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 04:08:27PM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Olof Johansson writes:
>
> > I would be very happy to take more code for the older Qualcomm chipset
> > to enable full functionality for them, but it's been my impression
> > that far from all that is needed to make it a useful platf
Olof Johansson writes:
> I would be very happy to take more code for the older Qualcomm chipset
> to enable full functionality for them, but it's been my impression
> that far from all that is needed to make it a useful platform is in
> the upstream kernel, and there's been no signs of more of it
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:39:45AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Daniel Walker wrote:
>
> > Personally I think splitting mach- stuff isn't very useful or
> > interesting.. There's just no technical reason for it, for example x86
> > and x86_64 was a win from my
* Olof Johansson [131029 10:40]:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Daniel Walker wrote:
>
> > Personally I think splitting mach- stuff isn't very useful or
> > interesting.. There's just no technical reason for it, for example x86
> > and x86_64 was a win from my perspective , there's a lot mo
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Daniel Walker wrote:
> Personally I think splitting mach- stuff isn't very useful or
> interesting.. There's just no technical reason for it, for example x86
> and x86_64 was a win from my perspective , there's a lot more reason to
> keep similar things together
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 08:37:28AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> Daniel,
>
> I would be very happy to take more code for the older Qualcomm chipset
> to enable full functionality for them, but it's been my impression
> that far from all that is needed to make it a useful platform is in
> the upst
Daniel,
I would be very happy to take more code for the older Qualcomm chipset
to enable full functionality for them, but it's been my impression
that far from all that is needed to make it a useful platform is in
the upstream kernel, and there's been no signs of more of it showing
up at least in
That's not very nice .. You know there is a device connect with this
that several of us have..
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 01:43:24PM -0700, David Brown wrote:
> Support for the MSM7x00 SoCs was added starting in 2008 based on code
> from Google's Android kernels. Platform support is fairly minimal
20 matches
Mail list logo
