Hi Tero, Paul,
After discussion with Paul at LPC I produced a new version that we are
now internally reviewing.
Paul, what is your plan?
Regards,
Jean
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Tero Kristo t-kri...@ti.com wrote:
On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 11:20 +0530, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote:
Paul,
On
On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 11:20 +0530, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote:
Paul,
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 6:18 AM, Paul Walmsley p...@pwsan.com wrote:
Hi Santosh,
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Jean Pihet jean.pi...@newoldbits.com
wrote:
Here is a re-spin after some comments and suggestions after review.
Implement the functional states for the power domains:
- unify the API to use the functional states. pwrdm_set_next_fpwrst
now is the function to control the power domains power and logic
states,
- reorganize the powerdomain
Jean,
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Jean Pihet jean.pi...@newoldbits.com wrote:
Here is a re-spin after some comments and suggestions after review.
Implement the functional states for the power domains:
- unify the API to use the functional states. pwrdm_set_next_fpwrst
now is the
Hi Santosh,
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Jean Pihet jean.pi...@newoldbits.com wrote:
I didn't find any mention here about why are we going in this path and not
in the direction proposed in another RFC [1]
I have already given my comments[2]
Paul,
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 6:18 AM, Paul Walmsley p...@pwsan.com wrote:
Hi Santosh,
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Jean Pihet jean.pi...@newoldbits.com
wrote:
I didn't find any mention here about why are we going in this path and
