On 31/05/2013 01:17, Douglas Gilbert :
On 13-05-30 03:36 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 09:50:27 +0200 Nicolas Ferre
wrote:
The review of this patch series was in my TODO list for some time...
Today, I magically took time to review it ;-)
The patch series is good and I (even
On 31/05/2013 01:17, Douglas Gilbert :
On 13-05-30 03:36 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 09:50:27 +0200 Nicolas Ferre
nicolas.fe...@atmel.com wrote:
The review of this patch series was in my TODO list for some time...
Today, I magically took time to review it ;-)
The patch
On 13-05-30 03:36 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 09:50:27 +0200 Nicolas Ferre
wrote:
The review of this patch series was in my TODO list for some time...
Today, I magically took time to review it ;-)
The patch series is good and I (even if it is too late) here is my:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 09:50:27 +0200 Nicolas Ferre
wrote:
> The review of this patch series was in my TODO list for some time...
>
> Today, I magically took time to review it ;-)
> The patch series is good and I (even if it is too late) here is my:
>
> Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre
>
> I do not
On 30/05/2013 01:22, Douglas Gilbert :
On 13-05-29 04:41 PM, Robert Nelson wrote:
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Andrew Morton
wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013 10:38:50 +0200 Johan Hovold
wrote:
This is an update of the shadow-interrupt-mask series against
v3.10-rc2.
I guess we need Atmel to
On 29/05/2013 22:41, Robert Nelson :
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Andrew Morton
wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013 10:38:50 +0200 Johan Hovold wrote:
This is an update of the shadow-interrupt-mask series against v3.10-rc2.
I guess we need Atmel to confirm that all sam9x5 SoCs are indeed
On 23/05/2013 10:38, Johan Hovold :
This is an update of the shadow-interrupt-mask series against v3.10-rc2.
I guess we need Atmel to confirm that all sam9x5 SoCs are indeed
affected. If not, then some probing mechanism as the one Doug suggested
could be implemented on top of (a subset of)
On 23/05/2013 10:38, Johan Hovold :
This is an update of the shadow-interrupt-mask series against v3.10-rc2.
I guess we need Atmel to confirm that all sam9x5 SoCs are indeed
affected. If not, then some probing mechanism as the one Doug suggested
could be implemented on top of (a subset of)
On 29/05/2013 22:41, Robert Nelson :
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Andrew Morton
a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013 10:38:50 +0200 Johan Hovold jhov...@gmail.com wrote:
This is an update of the shadow-interrupt-mask series against v3.10-rc2.
I guess we need Atmel to
On 30/05/2013 01:22, Douglas Gilbert :
On 13-05-29 04:41 PM, Robert Nelson wrote:
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Andrew Morton
a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013 10:38:50 +0200 Johan Hovold jhov...@gmail.com
wrote:
This is an update of the shadow-interrupt-mask series
On Thu, 30 May 2013 09:50:27 +0200 Nicolas Ferre nicolas.fe...@atmel.com
wrote:
The review of this patch series was in my TODO list for some time...
Today, I magically took time to review it ;-)
The patch series is good and I (even if it is too late) here is my:
Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre
On 13-05-30 03:36 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2013 09:50:27 +0200 Nicolas Ferre nicolas.fe...@atmel.com
wrote:
The review of this patch series was in my TODO list for some time...
Today, I magically took time to review it ;-)
The patch series is good and I (even if it is too
On 13-05-29 04:41 PM, Robert Nelson wrote:
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Andrew Morton
wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013 10:38:50 +0200 Johan Hovold wrote:
This is an update of the shadow-interrupt-mask series against v3.10-rc2.
I guess we need Atmel to confirm that all sam9x5 SoCs are indeed
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Andrew Morton
wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 10:38:50 +0200 Johan Hovold wrote:
>
>> This is an update of the shadow-interrupt-mask series against v3.10-rc2.
>>
>> I guess we need Atmel to confirm that all sam9x5 SoCs are indeed
>> affected. If not, then some
On Thu, 23 May 2013 10:38:50 +0200 Johan Hovold wrote:
> This is an update of the shadow-interrupt-mask series against v3.10-rc2.
>
> I guess we need Atmel to confirm that all sam9x5 SoCs are indeed
> affected. If not, then some probing mechanism as the one Doug suggested
> could be implemented
On Thu, 23 May 2013 10:38:50 +0200 Johan Hovold jhov...@gmail.com wrote:
This is an update of the shadow-interrupt-mask series against v3.10-rc2.
I guess we need Atmel to confirm that all sam9x5 SoCs are indeed
affected. If not, then some probing mechanism as the one Doug suggested
could be
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Andrew Morton
a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013 10:38:50 +0200 Johan Hovold jhov...@gmail.com wrote:
This is an update of the shadow-interrupt-mask series against v3.10-rc2.
I guess we need Atmel to confirm that all sam9x5 SoCs are indeed
On 13-05-29 04:41 PM, Robert Nelson wrote:
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Andrew Morton
a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2013 10:38:50 +0200 Johan Hovold jhov...@gmail.com wrote:
This is an update of the shadow-interrupt-mask series against v3.10-rc2.
I guess we need Atmel
This is an update of the shadow-interrupt-mask series against v3.10-rc2.
I guess we need Atmel to confirm that all sam9x5 SoCs are indeed
affected. If not, then some probing mechanism as the one Doug suggested
could be implemented on top of (a subset of) these patches. What do you
say, Nicolas?
This is an update of the shadow-interrupt-mask series against v3.10-rc2.
I guess we need Atmel to confirm that all sam9x5 SoCs are indeed
affected. If not, then some probing mechanism as the one Doug suggested
could be implemented on top of (a subset of) these patches. What do you
say, Nicolas?
20 matches
Mail list logo
