[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1505281520410.31038@linuxheads99>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 15:21:43 -0500
From: atull <atull@...nsource.altera.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>
CC: Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@...nsource.altera.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Steffen Trumtrar <s.trumtrar@...gutronix.de>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
"Kumar Gala" <galak@...eaurora.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Delicious Quinoq <delicious.quinoa@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] ARM: socfpga: support suspend to ram
On Tue, 26 May 2015, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > Thanks for the feedback.
> >
> > Yes I agree.
> >
> > One possibility is that I could add a suspend function to EDAC that
> > always fails with a helpful message like "Suspend with EDAC not
> > supported." If someone wants to suspend, they'll have to take the
> > EDAC out of the device tree so its probe will bomb out. I'm not
> > sure how normal it is to have suspend functions in the kernel
> > that always fail, though.
>
> "Interesting" solution, but better than config exclusion, I'd say.
>
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * This code assumes that the bootloader has already
> > > > + * properly configured the sdram controller:
> > >
> > > Which bootloaders can do that?
> >
> > Whatever bootloader is configuring the sdram controller for the
> > board.
>
> Ok, so direct question: will mainline u-boot 2015.04 configure the
> controller correctly?
Should be in 2015.07
Alan Tull
--
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