On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> Kyungmin Park wrote:
>>
>> " Note: S5PC110 and S5PC210 have same OneNAND driver."
>>
>> Yes I also think it's same device. At least Spec is same. But I heard it
> has
>> some different feature related with DMA operation.
>> I'm not yet receive
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> Kyungmin Park wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
>> > Kyungmin Park wrote:
>> >>
>> >> NAK.
>> >>
>> > I don't know why I need your ack for this...if any opinions, just
> comments
>> > is enough.
>>
>> Okay I said
Kyungmin Park wrote:
>
> " Note: S5PC110 and S5PC210 have same OneNAND driver."
>
> Yes I also think it's same device. At least Spec is same. But I heard it
has
> some different feature related with DMA operation.
> I'm not yet receive the official release from LSI. So I can't tell the
exact
> on
Kyungmin Park wrote:
>
> Well,
>
> The current V310 clock codes don't work. I wonder these codes are
> should be tested by your team. but it's just hang at clock init.
>
> With this patch, it's also don't boot. We also fixed the wrong uart
> clock bit. but same. don't works.
>
> Question? Do yo
Kyungmin Park wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> > Kyungmin Park wrote:
> >>
> >> NAK.
> >>
> > I don't know why I need your ack for this...if any opinions, just
comments
> > is enough.
>
> Okay I said in other word, I can't agree this patch.
>
> >
> >> This approac
" Note: S5PC110 and S5PC210 have same OneNAND driver."
Yes I also think it's same device. At least Spec is same. But I heard it has
some different feature related with DMA operation.
I'm not yet receive the official release from LSI. So I can't tell the exact
one.
If it's true. we need to separat
Well,
The current V310 clock codes don't work. I wonder these codes are
should be tested by your team. but it's just hang at clock init.
With this patch, it's also don't boot. We also fixed the wrong uart
clock bit. but same. don't works.
Question? Do you can boot with this codes at your board?
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> Kyungmin Park wrote:
>>
>> NAK.
>>
> I don't know why I need your ack for this...if any opinions, just comments
> is enough.
Okay I said in other word, I can't agree this patch.
>
>> This approach don't make a common GPIO framework. I already
Fix this warning:
arch/arm/mm/init.c: In function 'mem_init':
arch/arm/mm/init.c:644: warning: format '%08lx' expects type
'long unsigned int', but argument 12 has type 'unsigned int'
And removes the useless parens and white space.
Reported-by: Kyungmin Park
Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim
Cc: Ben D
Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
Hi ;-)
> Kukjin Kim wrote:
>
> > Fix this warning:
>
> > arch/arm/mm/init.c: In function 'mem_init':
> > arch/arm/mm/init.c:644: warning: format '%08lx' expects type
> > 'long unsigned int', but argument 12 has type 'unsigned int'
>
> > Reported-by: Kyungmi
Kyungmin Park wrote:
>
> NAK.
>
I don't know why I need your ack for this...if any opinions, just comments
is enough.
> This approach don't make a common GPIO framework. I already send the
> common GPIO framework which send the base address to GPIO framework
> and handle it regradless GPIO is on
11 matches
Mail list logo
