On Tuesday 27 August 2013 02:08:16 Tomasz Figa wrote:
>
> Well, if we could drop legacy board file support for them and keep them as
> DT only, support for them could be reasonably simple. Basically the code
> in arch/arm would be limited to a single .c file per SoC (e.g. mach-
> s5pv210-dt.c),
Hi Kukjin,
On Monday 26 of August 2013 09:52:47 Kukjin Kim wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have a plan to remove supporting following SoCs in mainline in the
> near future.
> - s5pc100 - smdkc100
We already have this almost moved to device tree. A common clock framework
and pin control drivers should be
On Monday 26 August 2013 13:54:59 Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> Hi Kukjin,
>
> On 8/26/2013 2:52 AM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have a plan to remove supporting following SoCs in mainline in the near
> > future.
> > - s5pc100 - smdkc100
> > - s5pv210(s5c110) - aquial, goni, smdkc110, smdk
Hi Kukjin,
On 8/26/2013 2:52 AM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
Hi all,
I have a plan to remove supporting following SoCs in mainline in the near
future.
- s5pc100 - smdkc100
- s5pv210(s5c110) - aquial, goni, smdkc110, smdkv210, torbreck
- s5p64x0(s5p6440, s5p6450)- smdk6440, smdk6450
I think users don't s
Hi all,
I have a plan to remove supporting following SoCs in mainline in the near
future.
- s5pc100 - smdkc100
- s5pv210(s5c110) - aquial, goni, smdkc110, smdkv210, torbreck
- s5p64x0(s5p6440, s5p6450)- smdk6440, smdk6450
I think users don't seem to use that any more with mainline. If so, we are
