On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Sjur BRENDELAND
wrote:
> This driver is intended for NovaThor SoC and for a configuration with
> LLI as the shared memory interface between the host and modem.
> When using LLI as the shared memory interface the modem could be used
> with any platform/architecture
> From: Ohad Ben-Cohen [mailto:o...@wizery.com] Sent: 9. oktober 2012 16:39
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Dan Carpenter
>
> wrote:
>> If it already compiles fine on x86 then there is no advantage to
>> disabling it.
>
> Not really; that's really a hardware question and not a software one.
>
From: Ohad Ben-Cohen [mailto:o...@wizery.com] Sent: 9. oktober 2012 16:39
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Dan Carpenter
dan.carpen...@oracle.com wrote:
If it already compiles fine on x86 then there is no advantage to
disabling it.
Not really; that's really a hardware question and not a
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Sjur BRENDELAND
sjur.brandel...@stericsson.com wrote:
This driver is intended for NovaThor SoC and for a configuration with
LLI as the shared memory interface between the host and modem.
When using LLI as the shared memory interface the modem could be used
with
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> If it already compiles fine on x86 then there is no advantage to
> disabling it.
Not really; that's really a hardware question and not a software one.
There are hardware devices that can go with any platform/architecture,
e.g., WLAN chips.
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 04:15:15PM +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Dan Carpenter
> wrote:
> > Unless there is a good reason why
>
> That's what I'm asking. Is there an inherent coupling with some
> platform/architecture ? E.g., OMAP remote processors only go with
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> Unless there is a good reason why
That's what I'm asking. Is there an inherent coupling with some
platform/architecture ? E.g., OMAP remote processors only go with
OMAP chips.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 01:52:49PM +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> Hi Sjur,
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Sjur BRENDELAND
> wrote:
> > Sorry for not responding sooner, but I thought this issue was solved with
> > your patch "remoteproc: fix (again) the virtio-related build breakage"
> >
Hi Sjur,
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Sjur BRENDELAND
wrote:
> Sorry for not responding sooner, but I thought this issue was solved with
> your patch "remoteproc: fix (again) the virtio-related build breakage"
> (https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/6/85).
>
> I'm not sure I understand why you
Hi Ohad,
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 4:45 AM, Fengguang Wu
> wrote:
> >> Hi Ohad,
> >>
> >> FYI, kernel build failed on
> >>
> >> tree: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ohad/remoteproc.git
> for-next
> >> head:
Hi Sjur,
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 4:45 AM, Fengguang Wu wrote:
>> Hi Ohad,
>>
>> FYI, kernel build failed on
>>
>> tree: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ohad/remoteproc.git
>> for-next
>> head:
Hi Sjur,
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen o...@wizery.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 4:45 AM, Fengguang Wu fengguang...@intel.com wrote:
Hi Ohad,
FYI, kernel build failed on
tree: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ohad/remoteproc.git
for-next
head:
Hi Ohad,
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen o...@wizery.com
wrote:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 4:45 AM, Fengguang Wu
fengguang...@intel.com wrote:
Hi Ohad,
FYI, kernel build failed on
tree: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ohad/remoteproc.git
for-next
Hi Sjur,
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Sjur BRENDELAND
sjur.brandel...@stericsson.com wrote:
Sorry for not responding sooner, but I thought this issue was solved with
your patch remoteproc: fix (again) the virtio-related build breakage
(https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/6/85).
I'm not sure I
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 01:52:49PM +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
Hi Sjur,
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Sjur BRENDELAND
sjur.brandel...@stericsson.com wrote:
Sorry for not responding sooner, but I thought this issue was solved with
your patch remoteproc: fix (again) the virtio-related
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Dan Carpenter dan.carpen...@oracle.com wrote:
Unless there is a good reason why
That's what I'm asking. Is there an inherent coupling with some
platform/architecture ? E.g., OMAP remote processors only go with
OMAP chips.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 04:15:15PM +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Dan Carpenter dan.carpen...@oracle.com
wrote:
Unless there is a good reason why
That's what I'm asking. Is there an inherent coupling with some
platform/architecture ? E.g., OMAP remote
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Dan Carpenter dan.carpen...@oracle.com wrote:
If it already compiles fine on x86 then there is no advantage to
disabling it.
Not really; that's really a hardware question and not a software one.
There are hardware devices that can go with any
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 4:45 AM, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> Hi Ohad,
>
> FYI, kernel build failed on
>
> tree: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ohad/remoteproc.git
> for-next
> head: bec109a430e8c67bae1743f7e71898283234a77f
> commit: ec4d02d9180f407c41f8310a13b34e473c671fbb [6/9]
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 4:45 AM, Fengguang Wu fengguang...@intel.com wrote:
Hi Ohad,
FYI, kernel build failed on
tree: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ohad/remoteproc.git
for-next
head: bec109a430e8c67bae1743f7e71898283234a77f
commit:
20 matches
Mail list logo