On 09/21/2010 11:02 AM, Christian Robottom Reis wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 12:15:17AM +0200, Robert Schwebel wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 09:19:49AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>>     o       Jason Hui: iMX51 work on device trees.  Need assignment.
>>>             Reviewed BSP review, need to send results to Loïc et al.
>>
>> It would be great to see more MX51 things on ALKML (and devicetree
>> things on devtree-discuss). Up to now I have the impression that there
>> is still much work done behind closed doors, which is bad if we want to
>> have better mainline support for i.MX5x.
>
> That's a good point and there's nothing behind closed doors happening
> that I have requested -- in fact, I mandate the opposite. I would assume
> that Jeremy has been posting device tree mx51 work to the
> devtree-discuss ML, and that mx51 patches coming out of the KWG and PMWG
> are also posted to ALKML; correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> It may be that it's just very little happening :-/

In fact, that is the case. There has been no work on it in 4 months. The 
main area of work since then has been on a common struct clk to enable 
DT clock support.

The MX51 DT work is here:

http://kernel.ubuntu.com/git?p=jk/dt/linux-2.6.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/mx51

Rob

_______________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev

Reply via email to