Abhilash Kesavan wrote:
Hi Russell and Tomasz,
+Arnd
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 09:37:14AM +0530, Abhilash Kesavan wrote:
Hi Kukjin,
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Abhilash Kesavan
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:30:46AM +0530, Abhilash Kesavan wrote:
I see that you have sent a patch out that ensures both part and
implementor number are checked. Currently, my patch has been applied
to the fixes branch of the arm-soc tree and I wanted to know how to
proceed (without it there
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 09:37:14AM +0530, Abhilash Kesavan wrote:
Hi Kukjin,
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Abhilash Kesavan a.kesa...@samsung.com
wrote:
Signed-off-by: Abhilash Kesavan a.kesa...@samsung.com
Do you have any comments on this patch ?
I do.
diff --git
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 05:11:14PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
Another point: exynos have taken it upon themselves to add code which
saves various ARM core registers. This is a bad idea, it brings us
back to the days where every platform did their own suspend implementations.
CPU
Hi Russell,
On 24.06.2014 18:11, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 09:37:14AM +0530, Abhilash Kesavan wrote:
Hi Kukjin,
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Abhilash Kesavan a.kesa...@samsung.com
wrote:
Signed-off-by: Abhilash Kesavan a.kesa...@samsung.com
Do you have
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 06:20:56PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
Hi Russell,
On 24.06.2014 18:11, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 09:37:14AM +0530, Abhilash Kesavan wrote:
Hi Kukjin,
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Abhilash Kesavan a.kesa...@samsung.com
wrote:
On 24.06.2014 18:30, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 06:20:56PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
Hi Russell,
On 24.06.2014 18:11, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 09:37:14AM +0530, Abhilash Kesavan wrote:
Hi Kukjin,
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 8:31 AM,
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 07:16:47PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
I tend to disagree. The chance of a new Cortex A9 based SoC with
different implementor code showing up is so close to zero that I don't
see increasing of code complexity by adding yet another check justified.
That's your opinion
Hi Russell and Tomasz,
+Arnd
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 09:37:14AM +0530, Abhilash Kesavan wrote:
Hi Kukjin,
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Abhilash Kesavan a.kesa...@samsung.com
wrote:
Signed-off-by:
Abhilash Kesavan wrote:
We have an soc check to ensure that the scu and certain A9 specific
registers are not accessed on Exynos5250 (which is A15 based).
Rather than adding another soc specific check for 5420 let us test
for the Cortex A9 primary part number.
This resolves the below
Hi Kukjin,
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Abhilash Kesavan a.kesa...@samsung.com wrote:
We have an soc check to ensure that the scu and certain A9 specific
registers are not accessed on Exynos5250 (which is A15 based).
Rather than adding another soc specific check for 5420 let us test
for
We have an soc check to ensure that the scu and certain A9 specific
registers are not accessed on Exynos5250 (which is A15 based).
Rather than adding another soc specific check for 5420 let us test
for the Cortex A9 primary part number.
This resolves the below crash seen on exynos5420 during core
12 matches
Mail list logo
