RE: [PATCHv2 1/2] ARM: mx51: Implement code to allow mx51 to enterWFI

[Nguyen Dinh-R00091]

Hi Sascha,

>-----Original Message-----
>From: s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 12:07 PM
>To: Nguyen Dinh-R00091
>Cc: Arnaud Patard; linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Vaidyanathan Ranjani-RA5478;
>u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Zhang Lily-R58066; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/2] ARM: mx51: Implement code to allow mx51 to enter WFI
>
>On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 04:35:48PM +0000, Nguyen Dinh-R00091 wrote:
>> Hi Arnaud,
>>
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: linux-arm-kernel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-arm-kernel-
>> >bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Arnaud Patard
>> >Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 10:02 AM
>> >To: Nguyen Dinh-R00091
>> >Cc: linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Vaidyanathan
>> >Ranjani-RA5478; u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Zhang Lily-R58066; linux-arm-
>> >kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/2] ARM: mx51: Implement code to allow mx51 to enter WFI
>> >
>> >Nguyen Dinh-R00091 <R00091@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> >
>> >> Hi Arnaud,
>> >
>> >Hi,
>> >>
>> >> Just to verify that you are testing on an MX51-Babbage board? Here's my log:
>> >
>> >I never said I was testing on babbage. The reason is because I'm using a
>> >efika smartbook and not a babbage.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> root@freescale ~$ uname -a
>> >> Linux freescale 2.6.38-rc1+ #93 Fri Mar 4 17:18:15 CST 2011 armv7l GNU/Linux
>> >
>> >2.6.38-rc1+ ? which tree are you using ? The for-next branch of Sascha
>> >Hauer's tree is at least 2.6.38-rc5 so you're trying to merge something
>> >without even testing it on the current tree. Can you please test suspend
>> >with current imx for-next tree (with no other patches than theses 2
>> >patches if possible), in order to make sure that it's still working with it ?
>> >
>>
>> 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.
>

This doesn't seem right. When I do a "make mx51_defconfig", I see that mx51 and mx53 are selected, which is odd but should be okay if you move mx51_defconfig->mx5_defconfig. After doing a "make mx51_defconfig", I have go unselect mx53 in the menuconfig and the image can boot for me on my MX51 HW. I didn't have to do in 2.6.38-rc1? Shouldn't the image generated from mx51_defconfig be bootable on both mx51 and mx53?

I thought we were going the down the path of a single kernel for mx50, mx51, and mx53? Am I missing the correct steps for a single kernel all the mx5 series SoCs?

Internally, we have a single mx5_defconfig for all MX5 SOCs. Is that something we should look to do?

Thanks,
Dinh

>Sascha
>
>
>--
>Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
>Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
>Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
>Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/