Hi Marek,
On 07/01/2014 06:08 PM, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 2014-07-01 10:52, Tobias Jakobi wrote:
>> Hello Marek,
>>
>> I think you had a similar patch in the tizen tree, but according to
>> Tomasz Figa, it was considered a hack. I don't quite see how this is
>> different.
>>
>>
Hello,
On 2014-07-01 19:54, Tobias Jakobi wrote:
> Marek Szyprowski wrote:
>> On 2014-07-01 10:52, Tobias Jakobi wrote:
>>> I think you had a similar patch in the tizen tree, but according to
>>> Tomasz Figa, it was considered a hack. I don't quite see how this is
>>> different.
>>>
>>> Also, if
Hi,
Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 2014-07-01 10:52, Tobias Jakobi wrote:
>> Hello Marek,
>>
>> I think you had a similar patch in the tizen tree, but according to
>> Tomasz Figa, it was considered a hack. I don't quite see how this is
>> different.
>>
>> Also, if I have been following
Hello,
On 2014-07-01 10:52, Tobias Jakobi wrote:
> Hello Marek,
>
> I think you had a similar patch in the tizen tree, but according to
> Tomasz Figa, it was considered a hack. I don't quite see how this is
> different.
>
> Also, if I have been following the discussion correctly, then the
>
Hello Marek,
I think you had a similar patch in the tizen tree, but according to
Tomasz Figa, it was considered a hack. I don't quite see how this is
different.
Also, if I have been following the discussion correctly, then the
powerdomain issue essentially is about the question which SoC block
This patch adds support for domain-always-on property to Exynos power
domain driver. Domains with this property as always kept enabled.
Signed-off-by: Marek Szyprowski
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/exynos/power_domain.txt | 2 ++
arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm_domains.c
