linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 22/22] ARM: dts: exynos: Add initial support for Odroid XU board

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-id: <57317333.5010309@kernel.org>
Date:	Tue, 10 May 2016 07:35:47 +0200
From:	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To:	Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>,
	Kukjin Kim <kgene@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>,
	Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@...sung.com>,
	Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 22/22] ARM: dts: exynos: Add initial support for Odroid
 XU board

On 05/10/2016 12:02 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> Hello Krzysztof,
> 
> On 05/08/2016 03:06 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> The Hardkernel's Odroid XU board was first design with big.LITTLE SoC
>> from Samsung: the Exynos5410. Comparing now to more popular Odroid XU3
>> the differences are:
>> 1. Exynos5410 instead of 5422,
>> 2. DisplayPort,
>> 3. Main PMIC: Maxim 77802 instead of S2MPS11,
>> 4. USB3503+LAN9730 instead of integrated LAN9514,
>> 5. eMMC 4.5 instead of eMMC 5.0,
>>
>> This patch adds initial support for the XU board with working basic
>> functions, eMMC/SD and USB (including attached ethernet adapter).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
>> ---
> 
> This DTS has some TODO's, FIXME's and commented input supplies. Probably
> this patch should had been an RFC? or you should mention about these in
> the commit message to understand why are there.

I have to clean it up or fix these notes. Actually I was quite surprised
that board worked fine with this basic setup.

Best regards,
Krzysztof