[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110308124023.5a952d13@archvile>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 12:40:23 +0100
From: David Jander <david.jander@...tonic.nl>
To: "s.hauer@...gutronix.de" <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Nguyen Dinh-R00091 <R00091@...escale.com>,
"linux@....linux.org.uk" <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Zhang Lily-R58066 <R58066@...escale.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Vaidyanathan Ranjani-RA5478 <RA5478@...escale.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de" <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
Arnaud Patard <arnaud.patard@...-net.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/2] ARM: mx51: Implement code to allow mx51 to enter
WFI
Hi Sascha,
On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 19:07:00 +0100
"s.hauer@...gutronix.de" <s.hauer@...gutronix.de> wrote:
>[...]
> > The current imx for-next tree is not booting on my Babbage board. Is
> > it okay for you with your HW. I'll have to debug the booting part
> > first.
>
> Probably because other than kconfig states i.MX51 and i.MX53 cannot be
> compiled in one kernel. the for-next branch boots fine on my babbage.
Would you mind explaining (or pointing to an explanation) as to why this is
not supposed to work? Given the high level of compatibility between MX51 and
MX53, I'd say there must be a very good reason not to enable a single binary
kernel for both. Or is this just temporary brokenness?
Best regards,
--
David Jander
Protonic Holland.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists