On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:01:17AM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Catalin Marinas
catalin.mari...@arm.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 05:48:48PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
Just speaking as an outsider to this topic, but seems like most/all
tablets/phones/etc ship
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Catalin Marinas
catalin.mari...@arm.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:01:17AM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Catalin Marinas
catalin.mari...@arm.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 05:48:48PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
Just
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 01:17:32PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Catalin Marinas
catalin.mari...@arm.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:01:17AM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
There are folks who are working to get saner, more-upstream kernels
working on devices..
Hi Rob,
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Rob Clark robdcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Catalin Marinas
catalin.mari...@arm.com wrote:
But I'm definitely going to discourage companies like Qualcomm
deliberately ignoring the existing booting protocols while trying to
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 05:48:48PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
Just speaking as an outsider to this topic, but seems like most/all
tablets/phones/etc ship with signed firmware. Which means for most of
the population, upgrading the firmware to a new version which did
support the standard (assuming
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 09:21:17AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
On Apr 13, 2015, at 4:41 AM, Catalin Marinas catalin.mari...@arm.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 02:06:33PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
On Apr 10, 2015, at 11:10 AM, Catalin Marinas catalin.mari...@arm.com
wrote:
Qualcomm choose
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Catalin Marinas
catalin.mari...@arm.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 05:48:48PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
Just speaking as an outsider to this topic, but seems like most/all
tablets/phones/etc ship with signed firmware. Which means for most of
the population,
On Tue, Apr 14 2015 at 16:32 -0600, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 03:21:17PM +0100, Kumar Gala wrote:
[...]
Looking beyond this set of patches, I can foresee that you won't care
about the generic arm64 cpuidle driver either, or more precisely the
separation between
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 05:17:59PM +0100, Lina Iyer wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14 2015 at 16:32 -0600, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 03:21:17PM +0100, Kumar Gala wrote:
[...]
Looking beyond this set of patches, I can foresee that you won't care
about the generic arm64
On Apr 14, 2015, at 9:21 AM, Kumar Gala ga...@codeaurora.org wrote:
So please come up with proper technical arguments rather than the kernel
should take whatever SoC vendors dreamt of.
There is no technical argument to be made. This is about the
community and you as maintainer wanting
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 11:05:29AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 12:37:06PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
This patch set adds support for SMP boot on the MSM8x16 family of Qualcomm
SoCs.
To support SMP on the MSM8x16 SoCs we need to add ARMv8/64-bit SCM
interfaces
On Apr 13, 2015, at 4:41 AM, Catalin Marinas catalin.mari...@arm.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 02:06:33PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
On Apr 10, 2015, at 11:10 AM, Catalin Marinas catalin.mari...@arm.com
wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 10:24:46AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
On Apr 10,
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 03:44:11PM +0100, Kumar Gala wrote:
On Apr 14, 2015, at 9:21 AM, Kumar Gala ga...@codeaurora.org wrote:
So please come up with proper technical arguments rather than the kernel
should take whatever SoC vendors dreamt of.
There is no technical argument to
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Catalin Marinas
catalin.mari...@arm.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 02:49:04PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
On Apr 14, 2015, at 11:36 AM, Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 11:05:29AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Thu, Apr 09,
On Apr 14, 2015, at 11:36 AM, Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 11:05:29AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 12:37:06PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
This patch set adds support for SMP boot on the MSM8x16 family of Qualcomm
SoCs.
To
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 03:21:17PM +0100, Kumar Gala wrote:
[...]
Looking beyond this set of patches, I can foresee that you won't care
about the generic arm64 cpuidle driver either, or more precisely the
separation between cpuidle subsystem+driver and the SoC-specific
back-end
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 02:49:04PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
On Apr 14, 2015, at 11:36 AM, Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 11:05:29AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 12:37:06PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
This patch set adds support for SMP
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 02:06:33PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
On Apr 10, 2015, at 11:10 AM, Catalin Marinas catalin.mari...@arm.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 10:24:46AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
On Apr 10, 2015, at 5:05 AM, Catalin Marinas catalin.mari...@arm.com
wrote:
On Thu, Apr 09,
This patch set adds support for SMP boot on the MSM8x16 family of Qualcomm SoCs.
To support SMP on the MSM8x16 SoCs we need to add ARMv8/64-bit SCM interfaces to
setup the boot/release addresses for the secondary CPUs. In addition we need
a uniquie set of cpu ops. I'm aware the desired methods
This patch set adds support for SMP boot on the MSM8x16 family of Qualcomm SoCs.
To support SMP on the MSM8x16 SoCs we need to add ARMv8/64-bit SCM interfaces to
setup the boot/release addresses for the secondary CPUs. In addition we need
a uniquie set of cpu ops. I'm aware the desired methods
20 matches
Mail list logo
