"Steve Sakoman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Paul Walmsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi Jouni, Kevin,
>>
>> On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, Högander Jouni wrote:
>>
>>> I wouldn't add any flags for this. The goal is finally to set all
>>> next_states as OFF until someon
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Paul Walmsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Jouni, Kevin,
>
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, Högander Jouni wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't add any flags for this. The goal is finally to set all
>> next_states as OFF until someone has set some constraint which
>> prevents OFF usage
Hi Jouni, Kevin,
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, Högander Jouni wrote:
> I wouldn't add any flags for this. The goal is finally to set all
> next_states as OFF until someone has set some constraint which
> prevents OFF usage. For now we need to use RET as default, because
> drivers are not supporting OFF mo
"ext Kevin Hilman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Högander Jouni wrote:
>> "ext Paul Walmsley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Hi Jouni,
>>>
>>> On Fri, 7 Nov 2008, Högander Jouni wrote:
>>>
What do you Paul think about patch below:
>>> I'm okay with it, but one potential problem: won't thi
Högander Jouni wrote:
"ext Paul Walmsley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Jouni,
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008, Högander Jouni wrote:
What do you Paul think about patch below:
I'm okay with it, but one potential problem: won't this prevent the chip
from entering retention, since SGX will be set to ON?
"ext Paul Walmsley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi Jouni,
>
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2008, Högander Jouni wrote:
>
>> What do you Paul think about patch below:
>
> I'm okay with it, but one potential problem: won't this prevent the chip
> from entering retention, since SGX will be set to ON?
Yes, you a
Hi Jouni,
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008, Högander Jouni wrote:
> What do you Paul think about patch below:
I'm okay with it, but one potential problem: won't this prevent the chip
from entering retention, since SGX will be set to ON?
Anyway, if you agree this is a problem, what do you think about adding
"ext Paul Walmsley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2008, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>
>> * Paul Walmsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [081105 11:39]:
>> >
>> > The SGX device on OMAP3 does not support retention, so remove RET from the
>> > list of possible SGX power states. Problem debugged by Ri
* Paul Walmsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [081106 03:09]:
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2008, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>
> > * Paul Walmsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [081105 11:39]:
> > >
> > > The SGX device on OMAP3 does not support retention, so remove RET from
> > > the
> > > list of possible SGX power states. Problem
On Wed, 5 Nov 2008, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Paul Walmsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [081105 11:39]:
> >
> > The SGX device on OMAP3 does not support retention, so remove RET from the
> > list of possible SGX power states. Problem debugged by Richard Woodruff
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
>
> Pushing.
* Paul Walmsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [081105 11:39]:
>
> The SGX device on OMAP3 does not support retention, so remove RET from the
> list of possible SGX power states. Problem debugged by Richard Woodruff
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
Pushing.
Tony
> Signed-off-by: Richard Woodruff <[EMAIL PROTECTE
The SGX device on OMAP3 does not support retention, so remove RET from the
list of possible SGX power states. Problem debugged by Richard Woodruff
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
Signed-off-by: Richard Woodruff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Paul Walmsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff --git a/arch/ar
12 matches
Mail list logo
