On 04/18/2013 04:15 PM, Arnd Bergmann :
On Thursday 18 April 2013, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
quoted
quoted
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 paragraph: now you are using the proper fix
with proper RAM type.
quoted
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Nicolas Ferre <redacted>
Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <redacted>
What is the future of this patch series: do you want us to take this
patch separately or to you want to apply the whole series on the arm-soc
tree?
I'd prefer if you could just apply or forward it to an appropriate tree.
Most of the other patches have found their way into mainline by now.
quoted
quoted
Cc: Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <redacted>
Cc: Andrew Victor <redacted>
Cc: Albin Tonnerre <redacted>
Cc: Daniel Lezcano <redacted>
Moreover, this patch my conflict with Daniel's current initiative to
move cpuidle driver to its own directory: how do we coordinate with each
other?
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 top of a
3.10-rc1-ish tree...
Best regards,
--
Nicolas Ferre