On Sat 29 Dec 2007 01:23, Mathieu Desnoyers pondered:
> Ok, and do we really need to make HARDWARE_PM a tristate ? I see that
> part of it must be compiled into the kernel in core .S files. Does it
> really make sense for it to be a module ?
I don't think so.
> Also, op_model_bf533.c sits in the
* Robin Getz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Fri 28 Dec 2007 14:28, Mathieu Desnoyers pondered:
> > * Adrian Bunk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 02:14:04PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > > * Adrian Bunk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > > > This patch restores the bl
On Fri 28 Dec 2007 14:28, Mathieu Desnoyers pondered:
> * Adrian Bunk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 02:14:04PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > * Adrian Bunk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > > This patch restores the blackfin Hardware Performance Monitor Profiling
> >
* Adrian Bunk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 02:14:04PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > * Adrian Bunk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > This patch restores the blackfin Hardware Performance Monitor Profiling
> > > support that was killed by
> > > commit 09cadedbdc01f1a4bea
On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 02:14:04PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Adrian Bunk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > This patch restores the blackfin Hardware Performance Monitor Profiling
> > support that was killed by
> > commit 09cadedbdc01f1a4bea1f427d4fb4642eaa19da9.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Adri
* Adrian Bunk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> This patch restores the blackfin Hardware Performance Monitor Profiling
> support that was killed by
> commit 09cadedbdc01f1a4bea1f427d4fb4642eaa19da9.
>
> Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
Yep, this one too must be put back, but kernel/
6 matches
Mail list logo