On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 04:51:09PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 08:25:02AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 02:22:44PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 01:10:20PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Oct 29, 20
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 08:36:41AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 02:35:26PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 06:20:40AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On 10/29/2014 05:34 AM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > > And what about any power-off latencies? Should
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 08:25:02AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 02:22:44PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 01:10:20PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 01:34:18PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Oct 28, 20
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 02:35:26PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 06:20:40AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On 10/29/2014 05:34 AM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 03:16:10PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 02:12:57PM +0
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 02:22:44PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 01:10:20PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 01:34:18PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 03:16:10PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > > And how
[ Again, please stop with the top-posting.
A: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post
Q: Were do I find info about this thing called top-posting?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? ]
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 02:11:02PM +0100
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 06:20:40AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 10/29/2014 05:34 AM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 03:16:10PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 02:12:57PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> >>> That's not what I was trying to refer t
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 01:10:20PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 01:34:18PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 03:16:10PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > And how is that different from having a set of power-off handlers, and
> > >
On 10/29/2014 05:34 AM, Johan Hovold wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 03:16:10PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 02:12:57PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
That's not what I was trying to refer to. But the patch set explicitly
allows for multiple, prioritised power-off h
This just to be sure, nothing more. I did read that you mentionned
"poweroff-source" earlier. However If I am wrong, my bad, everything
is fine.
2014-10-29 14:00 GMT+01:00 Johan Hovold :
> [ Please do not top-post. ]
>
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 01:55:49PM +0100, Romain Perier wrote:
>> Johan:. do
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 01:34:18PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 03:16:10PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > And how is that different from having a set of power-off handlers, and
> > reporting when each individual one fails? Don't you want to know if
> > your prim
[ Please do not top-post. ]
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 01:55:49PM +0100, Romain Perier wrote:
> Johan:. do you really plan to use this "poweroff-source" property ? As
> you proposed a renaming few days ago...
> I don't really want to waste time to propose patches to fix things
> incrementally and ren
Johan:. do you really plan to use this "poweroff-source" property ? As
you proposed a renaming few days ago...
I don't really want to waste time to propose patches to fix things
incrementally and rename it if the old one is used...
Romain
2014-10-29 13:34 GMT+01:00 Johan Hovold :
> On Tue, Oct 28
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 03:16:10PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 02:12:57PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > That's not what I was trying to refer to. But the patch set explicitly
> > allows for multiple, prioritised power-off handlers, which can power
> > off a boa
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 02:12:57PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> That's not what I was trying to refer to. But the patch set explicitly
> allows for multiple, prioritised power-off handlers, which can power
> off a board in different ways and with various degrees of success.
> Specifically, it allow
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 08:47:46AM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 09:16:16AM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > It looks like we're soon to be having power-off call chains, with
> > configurable priorities, to shut of various parts of the hardware
>
> I really hope th
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 09:16:16AM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> It looks like we're soon to be having power-off call chains, with
> configurable priorities, to shut of various parts of the hardware
I really hope that they *don't* get used like that. I guess this is
what happens when people don't
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 12:25:52AM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 04:22:51PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 21:55:32 +0200 Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > I will. :) Just wanted to see whether Andrew preferred I resend the
> > > whole series or just
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 04:22:51PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 21:55:32 +0200 Johan Hovold wrote:
> > I will. :) Just wanted to see whether Andrew preferred I resend the
> > whole series or just that one patch first.
> >
> > The diff is minimal:
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers
On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 21:55:32 +0200 Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 02:44:42PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 09:36:55PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 02:29:48PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Oct 24,
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 09:55:32PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 02:44:42PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 09:36:55PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 02:29:48PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Oc
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 02:44:42PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 09:36:55PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 02:29:48PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 02:25:40PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > > with this I a
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 09:36:55PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 02:29:48PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 02:25:40PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 09:02:51PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > > [ +CC: Russell ]
>
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 02:29:48PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 02:25:40PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 09:02:51PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > [ +CC: Russell ]
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:08:45AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 02:25:40PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 09:02:51PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > [ +CC: Russell ]
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:08:45AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> >
> > > I tested this entire series with my BBB and it still works fine.
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 09:02:51PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> [ +CC: Russell ]
>
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:08:45AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>
> > I tested this entire series with my BBB and it still works fine. However
> > I still get below panic. This time without any DRM errors:
> >
> >
[ +CC: Russell ]
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:08:45AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> I tested this entire series with my BBB and it still works fine. However
> I still get below panic. This time without any DRM errors:
>
> [ 63.087832] Kernel panic - not syncing: Attempted to kill init!
> exitcod
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 07:37:46PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> This series fixes a few issues with the omap rtc-driver, cleans up a
> bit, adds device abstraction, and finally adds support for the PMIC
> control feature found in some revisions of this RTC IP block.
>
> Ultimately, this allow
This series fixes a few issues with the omap rtc-driver, cleans up a
bit, adds device abstraction, and finally adds support for the PMIC
control feature found in some revisions of this RTC IP block.
Ultimately, this allows for powering off the Beaglebone and waking it up
again on RTC alarms.
Chan
29 matches
Mail list logo
