-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Somebody in the thread at some point said: | * Andy Green <[email protected]> [090302 15:55]: |> Somebody in the thread at some point said: |> | * Andy Green <[email protected]> [090302 15:21]: |> |> Somebody in the thread at some point said: |> |> | Dear Andy, |> |> | |> |> | Andy Green wrote (ao): |> |> |> Otherwise, they will simply propose people keep using U-Boot and |> not Qi |> |> |> as their "fix". To the extent we pull some extra current until GSM is |> |> |> turned on, Qi is then compatible with old and new kernels. So it's the |> |> |> best path right now AFAICT. |> |> | |> |> | Would it be too inconvenient to have a 'correct' Qi and a |> |> | 'backwards compatible' Qi? |> | |> |> It's not inconvenient if it can choose what to do at runtime, based on a |> |> sign from the U-Boot header that the kernel it's going to run can cope |> |> with the right thing. |> | what does this mean when booting from SD? No u-boot header involved |> | there, no? | |> There is the same U-Boot header on our kernels no matter where you're |> booting it from. | |> And it is a fixed-length (64 byte) header. | So... in the end you decided to just revert it?
Reverting it has made a solution no worse than U-Boot, I got halfway through a version-checking patch and more urgent things have come up. So don't worry, I will try to optimize power in those few seconds between boot and GSM being turned on by initscript for you. - -Andy -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkmuQhMACgkQOjLpvpq7dMoBzACeN5h5QjCV+hlXcL+h0t83/qAI g4kAn1mDE2OlxVDpbGegWrkFlQp15wId =p6Q1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
