On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Kyungmin Park
wrote:
> I don't say LSI need to support early chip. you focus on the your selected
> SoC.
> The remaining will be done by us.
Of course, you can do whatever you want.
I only worry that this mindless rush to push support for such obscure and rare
ma
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Jassi Brar wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
>> MyungJoo Ham wrote:
>>>
>>> CPUFREQ of S5PV210 uses different APLL settings and we provide
>>> such values for CPUFREQ at pll.h. We have been using differently
>>> between EVT0 and EVT1 mac
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> MyungJoo Ham wrote:
>>
>> CPUFREQ of S5PV210 uses different APLL settings and we provide
>> such values for CPUFREQ at pll.h. We have been using differently
>> between EVT0 and EVT1 machines. Although this version of kernel
>> assumes that the C
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> MyungJoo Ham wrote:
>>
>> CPUFREQ of S5PV210 uses different APLL settings and we provide
>> such values for CPUFREQ at pll.h. We have been using differently
>> between EVT0 and EVT1 machines. Although this version of kernel
>> assumes that the C
MyungJoo Ham wrote:
>
> CPUFREQ of S5PV210 uses different APLL settings and we provide
> such values for CPUFREQ at pll.h. We have been using differently
> between EVT0 and EVT1 machines. Although this version of kernel
> assumes that the CPU is EVT1, users may use code for EVT0 later.
>
> Note t
CPUFREQ of S5PV210 uses different APLL settings and we provide
such values for CPUFREQ at pll.h. We have been using differently
between EVT0 and EVT1 machines. Although this version of kernel
assumes that the CPU is EVT1, users may use code for EVT0 later.
Note that at 1GHz of ARMCLK, APLL should
