Thomas Abraham wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Mark Brown
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 10:46:47AM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> >
> >> - Device tree (with Linaro)
> >
> > What is going on with device tree? I've asked a couple of times about
> > this in the other thread but I'm s
Domenico Andreoli wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Thomas Abraham
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Mark Brown
> > wrote:
> >> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 10:46:47AM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> >>
> >>> - Device tree (with Linaro)
> >>
> >> What is going on with device tree?
David Anders
>
> Greetings All,
>
Hi,
>
> i've been looking at a number of machine files for boards that are no
> longer in production(mainly the ones i maintain), thoughts on removing
them?
You mean mach-amlm5900.c and mach-tct_hammer.c in mach-s3c2410?
Hmm...as you know, we need to think ag
Nick Pelling wrote:
>
> Hi Kgene,
>
Hi :)
> At 10:46 19/04/2011 +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> >As a note, I'm doing(or preparing) following at the moment.
> >- Removing some "mach-s5p"s
>
> Are you planning to remove mach-s5pc100? If yes, is this with the
> intention of reducing arch/arm code
Hi Kgene,
At 10:46 19/04/2011 +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote:
As a note, I'm doing(or preparing) following at the moment.
- Removing some "mach-s5p"s
Are you planning to remove mach-s5pc100? If yes, is this with the
intention of reducing arch/arm code size (by merging, say, with the
s5pc110 tre
Greetings All,
i've been looking at a number of machine files for boards that are no
longer in production(mainly the ones i maintain), thoughts on removing them?
Dave
On 04/18/2011 09:23 PM, Kyungmin Park wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I thi
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Thomas Abraham wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Mark Brown
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 10:46:47AM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote:
>>
>>> - Device tree (with Linaro)
>>
>> What is going on with device tree? I've asked a couple of times about
>> this in
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Mark Brown
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 10:46:47AM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote:
>
>> - Device tree (with Linaro)
>
> What is going on with device tree? I've asked a couple of times about
> this in the other thread but I'm still not clear where the code is or
> wha
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 10:46:47AM +0900, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> - Device tree (with Linaro)
What is going on with device tree? I've asked a couple of times about
this in the other thread but I'm still not clear where the code is or
what could usefully be done with it.
--
To unsubscribe from this l
Hello everyone,
Anyway, I've got a quick question about the directory structure in arch/arm/*
Is there any reason not to keep mach-* in plat-* directories while
mach-* appears to be a "sub-categories" of plat-*?
For example, rather than the current structure:
arch/arm/plat-samsung/
arch/arm/mach
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I think, you know about current situation of Linux ARM world.
>
> So...
>
> As Russell suggested, I also will focus on consolidations and bug fixes for
> Samsung stuff for a while so don't complain about missing new stuff. In my
> o
Hi all,
I think, you know about current situation of Linux ARM world.
So...
As Russell suggested, I also will focus on consolidations and bug fixes for
Samsung stuff for a while so don't complain about missing new stuff. In my
opinion, we can keep going it later...
As a note, I'm doing(or prepa
12 matches
Mail list logo
