On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 03:33:07PM +0100, Jonas Jensen wrote:
> The MOXA ART SoC is based on Faraday's FA526. This is a ARMv4 32-bit
> 192 MHz CPU with MMU and 16KB/8KB D/I-cache.
>
> Add platform support for this SoC.
>
> Also add UC-7112-LX as a machine.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jonas Jensen
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 03:33:07PM +0100, Jonas Jensen wrote:
The MOXA ART SoC is based on Faraday's FA526. This is a ARMv4 32-bit
192 MHz CPU with MMU and 16KB/8KB D/I-cache.
Add platform support for this SoC.
Also add UC-7112-LX as a machine.
Signed-off-by: Jonas Jensen
On Saturday 14 December 2013, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Hmm ... not sure I agree. I don't see a problem with something like
> "arm,moxart-reboot".
> There are already vexpress-reboot and xgene-reboot properties which do pretty
> much
> the same.
>
> Actually, you don't even need that; the reset
On 12/14/2013 10:50 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Saturday 14 December 2013, Jonas Jensen wrote:
Conceptually it might be cleaner to write a separate driver, for example
in drivers/power/restart, than plugging the functionality into
the watchdog driver, at least if you don't want it in
On Saturday 14 December 2013, Jonas Jensen wrote:
> >
> > Conceptually it might be cleaner to write a separate driver, for example
> > in drivers/power/restart, than plugging the functionality into
> > the watchdog driver, at least if you don't want it in architecture
> > or platform code. The
On 14 December 2013 16:50, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> The above would at least avoid the crash, though I would not understand
> the point of having an unloadable restart handler. Forcing the watchdog
> driver into the kernel just because you want the restart handler in it
> would seem odd. And if the
On 12/14/2013 12:32 AM, Jonas Jensen wrote:
On 13 December 2013 20:07, Guenter Roeck wrote:
I got the impression from Guenter Roeck's review, that it doesn't belong there,
maybe I was too quick to remove it?
You'd have to answer the questions I raised in my review if you want it in
there.
On 13 December 2013 20:07, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> I got the impression from Guenter Roeck's review, that it doesn't belong
>> there,
>> maybe I was too quick to remove it?
>>
> You'd have to answer the questions I raised in my review if you want it in
> there.
I didn't see a solution at the
On 13 December 2013 20:07, Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net wrote:
I got the impression from Guenter Roeck's review, that it doesn't belong
there,
maybe I was too quick to remove it?
You'd have to answer the questions I raised in my review if you want it in
there.
I didn't see a solution
On 12/14/2013 12:32 AM, Jonas Jensen wrote:
On 13 December 2013 20:07, Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net wrote:
I got the impression from Guenter Roeck's review, that it doesn't belong there,
maybe I was too quick to remove it?
You'd have to answer the questions I raised in my review if you
On 14 December 2013 16:50, Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net wrote:
The above would at least avoid the crash, though I would not understand
the point of having an unloadable restart handler. Forcing the watchdog
driver into the kernel just because you want the restart handler in it
would seem
On Saturday 14 December 2013, Jonas Jensen wrote:
Conceptually it might be cleaner to write a separate driver, for example
in drivers/power/restart, than plugging the functionality into
the watchdog driver, at least if you don't want it in architecture
or platform code. The xgene restart
On 12/14/2013 10:50 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Saturday 14 December 2013, Jonas Jensen wrote:
Conceptually it might be cleaner to write a separate driver, for example
in drivers/power/restart, than plugging the functionality into
the watchdog driver, at least if you don't want it in
On Saturday 14 December 2013, Guenter Roeck wrote:
Hmm ... not sure I agree. I don't see a problem with something like
arm,moxart-reboot.
There are already vexpress-reboot and xgene-reboot properties which do pretty
much
the same.
Actually, you don't even need that; the reset driver
On Friday 13 December 2013, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 06:23:44PM +0100, Jonas Jensen wrote:
> > On 13 December 2013 17:17, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > I've been out of the loop a bit here. I initially suggested having the
> > > restart
> > > handler be part of the watchdog
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 06:23:44PM +0100, Jonas Jensen wrote:
> On 13 December 2013 17:17, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > IIRC the separate defconfig is needed because we have never gotten a mixed
> > fa526+arm9
> > kernel to boot, right? In theory it is supposed to work and there is most
> > likely
On 13 December 2013 17:17, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> IIRC the separate defconfig is needed because we have never gotten a mixed
> fa526+arm9
> kernel to boot, right? In theory it is supposed to work and there is most
> likely just
> a small bug somewhere. Once that is working, we can think about
On Friday 13 December 2013, Jonas Jensen wrote:
> The MOXA ART SoC is based on Faraday's FA526. This is a ARMv4 32-bit
> 192 MHz CPU with MMU and 16KB/8KB D/I-cache.
>
> Add platform support for this SoC.
>
> Also add UC-7112-LX as a machine.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jonas Jensen
Let's make sure we
On Friday 13 December 2013, Jonas Jensen wrote:
The MOXA ART SoC is based on Faraday's FA526. This is a ARMv4 32-bit
192 MHz CPU with MMU and 16KB/8KB D/I-cache.
Add platform support for this SoC.
Also add UC-7112-LX as a machine.
Signed-off-by: Jonas Jensen jonas.jen...@gmail.com
On 13 December 2013 17:17, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
IIRC the separate defconfig is needed because we have never gotten a mixed
fa526+arm9
kernel to boot, right? In theory it is supposed to work and there is most
likely just
a small bug somewhere. Once that is working, we can think
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 06:23:44PM +0100, Jonas Jensen wrote:
On 13 December 2013 17:17, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
IIRC the separate defconfig is needed because we have never gotten a mixed
fa526+arm9
kernel to boot, right? In theory it is supposed to work and there is most
On Friday 13 December 2013, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 06:23:44PM +0100, Jonas Jensen wrote:
On 13 December 2013 17:17, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
I've been out of the loop a bit here. I initially suggested having the
restart
handler be part of the watchdog
22 matches
Mail list logo
