[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52828E31.8010408@wwwdotorg.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 13:23:13 -0700
From: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Tomasz Figa <t.figa@...sung.com>
CC: Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>,
Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 4/7] ARM: tegra: add support for Trusted Foundations
On 11/07/2013 03:11 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> Register the firmware operations for Trusted Foundations if the device
> tree indicates it is active on the device.
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/common.c b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/common.c
> void __init tegra_init_early(void)
> {
> + of_register_trusted_foundations();
> tegra_cpu_reset_handler_init();
> tegra_apb_io_init();
> tegra_init_fuse();
Your other bugfix patch for 3.13 moved tegra_cpu_reset_handler_init().
Should the call to of_register_trusted_foundations() move with it when
this is applied, or should it just stay right at the start of
tegra_init_early()? Either way is fine; just let me know which way to
fix up the conflict when this gets applied.
--
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