Hi Andrew,
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 2:53 AM, Tony Lindgren t...@atomide.com wrote:
* Ohad Ben-Cohen o...@wizery.com [101216 13:34]:
Tony, Andrew, can you please have a look ?
Any comment or suggestion is appreciated.
Looks sane to me from omap point of view and it seems the locks
are now
On Tue, 4 Jan 2011 14:23:20 +0200
Ohad Ben-Cohen o...@wizery.com wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 2:53 AM, Tony Lindgren t...@atomide.com wrote:
* Ohad Ben-Cohen o...@wizery.com [101216 13:34]:
Tony, Andrew, can you please have a look ?
Any comment or suggestion is
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 10:19 PM, Andrew Morton
a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
Acked-by: Tony Lindgren t...@atomide.com
Can you please have a look at this patch set (see link no. [1] below) ?
I looked - it looks reasonable. This is exactly the wrong time to be
looking at large new
* Ohad Ben-Cohen o...@wizery.com [101216 13:34]:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 11:08 PM, Greg KH g...@kroah.com wrote:
I've seen a lot of discussion about this, are all of the review comments
now addressed?
Yes, all comments were addressed in this v3 iteration, and this thread
has been idle
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen o...@wizery.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Greg KH g...@kroah.com wrote:
Like the most important one, why is this generic code if
it's only for one specific platform?
We started out with an omap-specific driver, but Tony preferred
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 08:40:28PM +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Greg KH g...@kroah.com wrote:
Can you please have a look and say if this looks OK ?
Look at what, I don't see a patch here.
Here's the complete patchset:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 11:08 PM, Greg KH g...@kroah.com wrote:
I've seen a lot of discussion about this, are all of the review comments
now addressed?
Yes, all comments were addressed in this v3 iteration, and this thread
has been idle for about 10 days.
That's because we are all busy
Hi Greg, Tony,
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 1:50 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen o...@wizery.com wrote:
OMAP4 introduces a Hardware Spinlock device, which provides hardware
assistance for synchronization and mutual exclusion between heterogeneous
processors and those not operating under a single, shared
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 04:31:36PM +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
Hi Greg, Tony,
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 1:50 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen o...@wizery.com wrote:
OMAP4 introduces a Hardware Spinlock device, which provides hardware
assistance for synchronization and mutual exclusion between
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Greg KH g...@kroah.com wrote:
Can you please have a look and say if this looks OK ?
Look at what, I don't see a patch here.
Here's the complete patchset:
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-omap@vger.kernel.org/msg39833.html
If you prefer, I can resubmit.
OMAP4 introduces a Hardware Spinlock device, which provides hardware
assistance for synchronization and mutual exclusion between heterogeneous
processors and those not operating under a single, shared operating system
(e.g. OMAP4 has dual Cortex-A9, dual Cortex-M3 and a C64x+ DSP).
The intention
On 12/03/2010 03:50 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
OMAP4 introduces a Hardware Spinlock device, which provides hardware
assistance for synchronization and mutual exclusion between heterogeneous
processors and those not operating under a single, shared operating system
(e.g. OMAP4 has dual Cortex-A9,
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 2:29 AM, David Daney dda...@caviumnetworks.com wrote:
Does anything other than OMAP4 have one of these things?
I'm not aware of any, but David Brownell had some ideas about it in
our previous v2 discussion (see
13 matches
Mail list logo
