From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758790Ab2IEMl3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Sep 2012 08:41:29 -0400 Received: from mail-vc0-f174.google.com ([209.85.220.174]:60875 "EHLO mail-vc0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752648Ab2IEMl2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Sep 2012 08:41:28 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <201209051211.13021.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1346839153-6465-1-git-send-email-loic.pallardy-ext@stericsson.com> <201209051042.00887.arnd@arndb.de> <504739B8.10604@st.com> <201209051211.13021.arnd@arndb.de> Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 14:41:27 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [st-ericsson] [PATCH 02/17] arm: ux500: add ccu9540 board support From: Linus Walleij To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Loic PALLARDY STE , Samuel Ortiz , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , STEricsson_nomadik_linux , Loic Pallardy , LT ST-Ericsson , Linus Walleij Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 05 September 2012, Loic PALLARDY wrote: >> >> On 09/05/2012 12:42 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> > On Wednesday 05 September 2012, Loic Pallardy wrote: >> >> +MACHINE_START(U9540, "ST-Ericsson 9540 platform") >> >> + .atag_offset = 0x100, >> >> + .map_io = u8500_map_io, >> >> + .nr_irqs = UX500_NR_IRQS, >> >> + .init_irq = ux500_init_irq, >> >> + .timer =&ux500_timer, >> >> + .handle_irq = gic_handle_irq, >> >> + .init_machine = u9540_init_machine, >> >> + .init_late = ux500_init_late, >> >> +MACHINE_END >> >> + >> > >> > Please don't add another ATAG based board definition to ux500. We're closing in >> > on having full support for DT booting with this platform, so your patch is just >> > making it harder for us to complete this. >> > >> > Arnd >> Yes I know and agree. >> Please consider this patch as a temporary one waiting for 9540 support >> from Lee. > > Why are you even posting the patches that you know won't make it then? My fault! I wanted an outside look at them before we take them too far. I should've requested to have the "RFC" prefix attached to them. Sorry if it annoyed you too much... Yours, Linus Walleij