RE: [PATCH] ARM: EXYNOS4: CPUIDLE Support

2011-03-16 Thread Kukjin Kim
Kyungmin Park wrote: On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 10:57 PM, Kukjin Kim kgene@samsung.com wrote: Jaecheol Lee wrote: This patch supports cpuidle framework for EXYNOS4210. Currently, Only one idle state is possible to use, but more idle states can be added following by this patch.

[PATCH] ARM: EXYNOS4: Add Atmel mXT touchscreen device to the NURI board

2011-03-16 Thread Joonyoung Shim
This patch is to support Atmel mXT touchscreen device to the NURI board. Signed-off-by: Joonyoung Shim jy0922.s...@samsung.com Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park kyungmin.p...@samsung.com --- Hi, This patch is created at the source tree merged next branch of

Re: [PATCH] ARM: S3C64XX: Fix section mismatch from cpufreq init

2011-03-16 Thread Uwe Kleine-König
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 02:58:13PM +, Mark Brown wrote: The cpufreq init function is referenced from the driver structure and we don't appear to have annotations which allow us to mark that it'll never be called after system init, causing the linker consistency infrastructure to complain.

Re: [PATCH] ARM: S3C64XX: Fix section mismatch from cpufreq init

2011-03-16 Thread Mark Brown
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 09:38:11AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 02:58:13PM +, Mark Brown wrote: we don't appear to have annotations which allow us to mark that it'll never be called after system init, causing the linker consistency Actually this is warning is a

Re: [PATCH] ARM: S3C64XX: Fix section mismatch from cpufreq init

2011-03-16 Thread Uwe Kleine-König
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 09:49:59AM +, Mark Brown wrote: On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 09:38:11AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 02:58:13PM +, Mark Brown wrote: we don't appear to have annotations which allow us to mark that it'll never be called after system

Re: [PATCH] ARM: S3C64XX: Fix section mismatch from cpufreq init

2011-03-16 Thread Mark Brown
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 11:13:00AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 09:49:59AM +, Mark Brown wrote: That's what I said above, pretty much. Ideally we'd have a way of annotating the call sites so that the linker infrastructure rather than having to faff about