Re: [PATCH V5 0/2] x86: IOSF: Add loadable module support

2014-03-03 Thread David E. Box
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 06:15:15AM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote: > On 2014/3/3 23:58, David E. Box wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 03:01:45PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote: > >> Hi David, > >> > >> I'm probably too late to catch this thread. Just one question, what's > >> the relationship between > >>

Re: [PATCH V5 0/2] x86: IOSF: Add loadable module support

2014-03-03 Thread Li, Aubrey
On 2014/3/3 23:58, David E. Box wrote: > On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 03:01:45PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote: >> Hi David, >> >> I'm probably too late to catch this thread. Just one question, what's >> the relationship between >> arch/x86/kernel/iosf_mbi.c >> and >>

Re: [PATCH V5 0/2] x86: IOSF: Add loadable module support

2014-03-03 Thread David E. Box
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 03:01:45PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote: > Hi David, > > I'm probably too late to catch this thread. Just one question, what's > the relationship between > arch/x86/kernel/iosf_mbi.c > and > drivers/platform/x86/intel_baytrail.c > iosf_mbi.c is the version that

Re: [PATCH V5 0/2] x86: IOSF: Add loadable module support

2014-03-03 Thread David E. Box
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 03:01:45PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote: Hi David, I'm probably too late to catch this thread. Just one question, what's the relationship between arch/x86/kernel/iosf_mbi.c and drivers/platform/x86/intel_baytrail.c iosf_mbi.c is the version that went

Re: [PATCH V5 0/2] x86: IOSF: Add loadable module support

2014-03-03 Thread Li, Aubrey
On 2014/3/3 23:58, David E. Box wrote: On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 03:01:45PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote: Hi David, I'm probably too late to catch this thread. Just one question, what's the relationship between arch/x86/kernel/iosf_mbi.c and drivers/platform/x86/intel_baytrail.c

Re: [PATCH V5 0/2] x86: IOSF: Add loadable module support

2014-03-03 Thread David E. Box
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 06:15:15AM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote: On 2014/3/3 23:58, David E. Box wrote: On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 03:01:45PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote: Hi David, I'm probably too late to catch this thread. Just one question, what's the relationship between

Re: [PATCH V5 0/2] x86: IOSF: Add loadable module support

2014-03-02 Thread Li, Aubrey
Hi David, I'm probably too late to catch this thread. Just one question, what's the relationship between arch/x86/kernel/iosf_mbi.c and drivers/platform/x86/intel_baytrail.c Thanks, -Aubrey On 2014/3/1 10:40, David E. Box wrote: > From: "David E. Box" > > This patch series

Re: [PATCH V5 0/2] x86: IOSF: Add loadable module support

2014-03-02 Thread Li, Aubrey
Hi David, I'm probably too late to catch this thread. Just one question, what's the relationship between arch/x86/kernel/iosf_mbi.c and drivers/platform/x86/intel_baytrail.c Thanks, -Aubrey On 2014/3/1 10:40, David E. Box wrote: From: David E. Box david.e@linux.intel.com

[PATCH V5 0/2] x86: IOSF: Add loadable module support

2014-02-28 Thread David E. Box
From: "David E. Box" This patch series adds missing functionalty that mostly affected loadable modules. The first patch adds dummy functions to allow drivers not completely dependant on the IOSF MBI driver to compile on systems that don't have it. The second makes MBI driver built in. Changes

[PATCH V5 0/2] x86: IOSF: Add loadable module support

2014-02-28 Thread David E. Box
From: David E. Box david.e@linux.intel.com This patch series adds missing functionalty that mostly affected loadable modules. The first patch adds dummy functions to allow drivers not completely dependant on the IOSF MBI driver to compile on systems that don't have it. The second makes MBI