Op 07-10-10 00:22, Ben Dooks schreef:
> I would still prefer each machine that can do pm to call s3c_pm_init()
> in their setup code to ensure that we don't enable pm on a machine with
> possibly incomplete support (especially as PM can be one of the more
> difficult things to debug).
Ok, will re
On 06/10/10 00:23, Kyungmin Park wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I agree your approach, put the common features in common place.
> but Samsung maintainers insist put these at each machine file at current time.
This is just an init call, the actuall implementation is common to the
core. We did it this was as it
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Maurus Cuelenaere wrote:
> Op 06-10-10 01:23, Kyungmin Park schreef:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I agree your approach, put the common features in common place.
>> but Samsung maintainers insist put these at each machine file at current
>> time.
>>
>> So move this to the each ma
Op 06-10-10 01:23, Kyungmin Park schreef:
> Hi,
>
> I agree your approach, put the common features in common place.
> but Samsung maintainers insist put these at each machine file at current time.
>
> So move this to the each machines for their tastes.
I did it that way first, but then wondered wh
Hi,
I agree your approach, put the common features in common place.
but Samsung maintainers insist put these at each machine file at current time.
So move this to the each machines for their tastes.
Thank you,
Kyungmin Park
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Maurus Cuelenaere wrote:
> The only mi
The only missing thing for SoC-wide suspend support, is a call to s3c_pm_init,
so add that. This was tested on a S3C6410 SmartQ 7.
Signed-off-by: Maurus Cuelenaere
---
arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/pm.c |3 +++
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/pm.c
