RE: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread joem
Confused yes - innocent mistake - 50% yes. I see now the posts are cc'd from arm-netbook mailing lists to many other mailing lists with different standards for noise. Apologies for not seeing that. arm-netbook list 'belongs' to luke, but generally the noise level is very low here and its aim is

Re: [Arm-netbook] getting allwinner SoC support upstream (was Re: Uploading linux (3.9.4-1))

2013-06-07 Thread joem
> > SoC vendors are free to join the discussion, and many SoC vendors are part > > of the kernel community, so calling this unilateral is plain wrong. > > you're free to believe that, vladimir. i've explained why that > hasn't happened, in prior messages. can we move forward, please? I prefer

Re: [Arm-netbook] device tree not the answer in the ARM world [was: Re: running Debian on a Cubieboard]

2013-05-08 Thread joem
On Sun, 2013-05-05 at 13:27 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > when i say "completely and utterly different", i am not just talking > about the processor, i am not just talking about the GPIO, or even the > buses: i'm talking about the sensors, the power-up mechanisms, the > startup proc