On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 02:22:21PM -0500, Becky Bruce wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm also guilty of not noticing the original patch - my apologies.
> >
> > maybe we should just have a platforms/fsl for all boards from
> > freescale. Not having things broken up by which processor family
> > they are for
Would you feel better if it was in platforms/common/ or
platforms/fsl
> Maybe it would make more sense for you guys to slice the platforms
> differently, and have a common platform for the eval boards you
> have
> with ULi on them instead of grouping it by core us
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:22:21 -0500
Becky Bruce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > maybe we should just have a platforms/fsl for all boards from
> > freescale. Not having things broken up by which processor family
> > they are for.
>
> What do you envision as being under there? Subdirs? How's i
On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 01:43:59PM -0500, Becky Bruce wrote:
> >> Maybe it would make more sense for you guys to slice the platforms
> >> differently, and have a common platform for the eval boards you have
> >> with ULi on them instead of grouping it by core used by the processor
> >> on the boar
On Sep 11, 2007, at 2:08 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> On Sep 11, 2007, at 1:43 PM, Becky Bruce wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sep 11, 2007, at 1:33 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 11, 2007, at 1:22 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
>>>
On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 01:00:47PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
>
On Sep 11, 2007, at 1:43 PM, Becky Bruce wrote:
>
> On Sep 11, 2007, at 1:33 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sep 11, 2007, at 1:22 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 01:00:47PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
On Sep 11, 2007, at 12:20 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
>
On Sep 11, 2007, at 1:33 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> On Sep 11, 2007, at 1:22 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 01:00:47PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sep 11, 2007, at 12:20 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
>>>
On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 12:03:48AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
On Sep 11, 2007, at 1:22 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 01:00:47PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 11, 2007, at 12:20 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 12:03:48AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>
On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 01:00:47PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> On Sep 11, 2007, at 12:20 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 12:03:48AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> ---
>>> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc8544ds.dts| 88 +
On Sep 11, 2007, at 12:20 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 12:03:48AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> ---
>> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc8544ds.dts| 88 --
>> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc8641_hpcn.dts | 114 +++--
On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 12:03:48AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ---
> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc8544ds.dts| 88 --
> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc8641_hpcn.dts | 114 +++--
> arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/Kconfig|
On Aug 17, 2007, at 6:53 PM, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Kumar Gala writes:
>
>> Its a regression in that the ULI M1575 doesn't really work properly
>> on some of these boards in certain situations.
>
> Well, "it doesn't work" isn't of itself a regression, a regression is
> "it used to work and now i
Kumar Gala writes:
> Its a regression in that the ULI M1575 doesn't really work properly
> on some of these boards in certain situations.
Well, "it doesn't work" isn't of itself a regression, a regression is
"it used to work and now it doesn't".
In any case the lateness x largeness product (Lx
On Aug 17, 2007, at 3:07 AM, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Kumar Gala writes:
>
>> The interrupt routing in the device trees for the ULI M1575 was
>> inproperly using the interrupt line field as pci function. Fixed
>> up the device tree's to actual conform for to specification and
>> changed the inter
Kumar Gala writes:
> The interrupt routing in the device trees for the ULI M1575 was
> inproperly using the interrupt line field as pci function. Fixed
> up the device tree's to actual conform for to specification and
> changed the interrupt mapping code so it just uses a static mapping
> setup a
The interrupt routing in the device trees for the ULI M1575 was
inproperly using the interrupt line field as pci function. Fixed
up the device tree's to actual conform for to specification and
changed the interrupt mapping code so it just uses a static mapping
setup as follows:
PIRQA - IRQ9
PIRQB
16 matches
Mail list logo
