Hello.
Mark A. Greer wrote:
Hi David Kevin.
[My apologies for being out of the loop on this. I just subscribed a
few mins ago and still catching up on the emails.]
Kind of my fault too -- I kept forgetting to CC Mark in the heat of
the argument...
On Tuesday 20 January 2009,
Hello.
David Brownell wrote:
- Entirely different dma controller.
Well, different address and fewer hardware events (32 vs 64),
but otherwise they both looked like EDMA. What's different
enough to may you say entirely different?
Hm, TCs are indeed mapped differently (CC mapped
Hello,
From: Sergei Shtylyov
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 5:42 PM
Hello.
Mark A. Greer wrote:
Hi David Kevin.
[My apologies for being out of the loop on this. I just subscribed a
few mins ago and still catching up on the emails.]
Kind of my fault too -- I kept
On Wed, 2009-01-21 at 15:12 +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
- We (or at least *I*) had no desire to have the same kernel binary
run on both a da8xx and a davinci. So, cutting out the davinci
runtime code data that was wasting memory was A Good Thing (tm).
Kevin seems the
Hello.
Nori, Sekhar wrote:
Either way, the lack of a complete proposal (not necessarily
in the form of patches) makes it hard to get anywhere with
such OMAP-L1xx discussions...
think I've expressed it clear enough: common shared code is
to be moved to plat-davinci/ and OMAP-L1x support is to
Hello,
From: Sergei Shtylyov [mailto:sshtyl...@ru.mvista.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 6:36 PM
Hello.
Nori, Sekhar wrote:
Either way, the lack of a complete proposal (not necessarily
in the form of patches) makes it hard to get anywhere with
such OMAP-L1xx discussions...
Hello.
Steve Chen wrote:
- We (or at least *I*) had no desire to have the same kernel binary
run on both a da8xx and a davinci. So, cutting out the davinci
runtime code data that was wasting memory was A Good Thing (tm).
Kevin seems the only person interested in ahving the
Hello.
Nori, Sekhar wrote:
Either way, the lack of a complete proposal (not necessarily
in the form of patches) makes it hard to get anywhere with
such OMAP-L1xx discussions...
think I've expressed it clear enough: common shared code is
to be moved to plat-davinci/ and OMAP-L1x support is
Hi Sergei, Sekhar,
From: davinci-linux-open-source-bounces+lester=ti@linux.davincidsp.com
[mailto:davinci-linux-open-source-
Nori, Sekhar wrote:
Either way, the lack of a complete proposal (not necessarily
in the form of patches) makes it hard to get anywhere with
such OMAP-L1xx
Hello.
Longley, Lester wrote:
Either way, the lack of a complete proposal (not necessarily
in the form of patches) makes it hard to get anywhere with
such OMAP-L1xx discussions...
think I've expressed it clear enough: common shared code is
to be moved to plat-davinci/ and OMAP-L1x support
Hi Sergei,
From: Sergei Shtylyov [mailto:sshtyl...@ru.mvista.com]
Longley, Lester wrote:
Either way, the lack of a complete proposal (not necessarily
in the form of patches) makes it hard to get anywhere with
such OMAP-L1xx discussions...
think I've expressed it clear enough: common
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 04:23:53PM -0800, David Brownell wrote:
On Tuesday 20 January 2009, Mark A. Greer wrote:
- Entirely different dma controller.
Well, different address and fewer hardware events (32 vs 64),
but otherwise they both looked like EDMA. What's different
enough to may you
It would be much better to have $SUBJECT change when
the topic changes ...
On Tuesday 20 January 2009, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
The way I currently see things is a single mach-davinci with support
for dm644x, dm355, dm646x, omapl1x7, etc.
MV too have clinged to the idea of parasitising on
Hello.
David Brownell wrote:
It would be much better to have $SUBJECT change when
the topic changes ...
Sure.
The way I currently see things is a single mach-davinci with support
for dm644x, dm355, dm646x, omapl1x7, etc.
MV too have clinged to the idea of parasitising on the DaVinci
On Tuesday 20 January 2009, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
Either way, the lack of a complete proposal (not necessarily
in the form of patches) makes it hard to get anywhere with
such OMAP-L1xx discussions...
I think I've expressed it clear enough: common shared code is
to be moved to
David Brownell wrote:
Either way, the lack of a complete proposal (not necessarily
in the form of patches) makes it hard to get anywhere with
such OMAP-L1xx discussions...
I think I've expressed it clear enough: common shared code is
to be moved to plat-davinci/ and OMAP-L1x support is to be
I suspect that until patches appear, discussion can get no
further. Plus, if it's going to be mach-omap-L1 it'd
be good to have enough detail that the OMAP team (and RMK)
can see why it should pair with plat-davinci instead of
the more obvious plat-omap.
Although it has OMAP in the
Sergei Shtylyov sshtyl...@ru.mvista.com writes:
David Brownell wrote:
Either way, the lack of a complete proposal (not necessarily
in the form of patches) makes it hard to get anywhere with
such OMAP-L1xx discussions...
I think I've expressed it clear enough: common shared code is
to be moved
Hello.
Kevin Hilman wrote:
Either way, the lack of a complete proposal (not necessarily
in the form of patches) makes it hard to get anywhere with
such OMAP-L1xx discussions...
I think I've expressed it clear enough: common shared code is
to be moved to plat-davinci/ and OMAP-L1x
Hello, I wrote:
Either way, the lack of a complete proposal (not necessarily
in the form of patches) makes it hard to get anywhere with
such OMAP-L1xx discussions...
I think I've expressed it clear enough: common shared code is
to be moved to plat-davinci/ and OMAP-L1x support is to
-Original Message-
From: David Brownell [mailto:davi...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 3:50 PM
To: Griffis, Brad
Cc: Sergei Shtylyov; DaVinci
Subject: Re: omap-L1xxx (WAS: [patch 0/6] EDMA interface updates)
On Tuesday 20 January 2009, Griffis, Brad wrote:
I
Hello.
David Brownell wrote:
The vast majority of the HW IP is shared with the
rest of the DaVinci family. I'm not aware of any HW IP shared with
OMAP (other than MUSB.)
MUSB runs on Blackfin too ... and the MUSB on OMAP-L1xx is
like the DaVinci flavor, given its use of CPPI for DMA.
On Tuesday 20 January 2009, David Brownell wrote:
Hi David Kevin.
[My apologies for being out of the loop on this. I just subscribed a
few mins ago and still catching up on the emails.]
On Tuesday 20 January 2009, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
Either way, the lack of a complete proposal (not
On Tuesday 20 January 2009, Mark A. Greer wrote:
- Entirely different dma controller.
Well, different address and fewer hardware events (32 vs 64),
but otherwise they both looked like EDMA. What's different
enough to may you say entirely different?
24 matches
Mail list logo
