From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from arroyo.ext.ti.com (arroyo.ext.ti.com [192.94.94.40]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EB28E00715 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2013 10:03:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dlelxv90.itg.ti.com ([172.17.2.17]) by arroyo.ext.ti.com (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id r83H3wKP031024; Tue, 3 Sep 2013 12:03:58 -0500 Received: from DLEE71.ent.ti.com (dlee71.ent.ti.com [157.170.170.114]) by dlelxv90.itg.ti.com (8.14.3/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r83H3wAc018136; Tue, 3 Sep 2013 12:03:58 -0500 Received: from dflp33.itg.ti.com (10.64.6.16) by DLEE71.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.114) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.342.3; Tue, 3 Sep 2013 12:03:57 -0500 Received: from localhost (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by dflp33.itg.ti.com (8.14.3/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r83H3v3f007827; Tue, 3 Sep 2013 12:03:57 -0500 Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 13:03:57 -0400 From: Denys Dmytriyenko To: Tasslehoff Kjappfot Message-ID: <20130903170356.GC22235@edge> References: <1378005180-30928-1-git-send-email-denis@denix.org> <1378005180-30928-5-git-send-email-denis@denix.org> <20130901031528.GA18322@edge> <52247F4E.6030404@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <52247F4E.6030404@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Cc: meta-ti@yoctoproject.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] libgles-omap3, omap3-sgx-modules: remove old 4.03.00.02 version X-BeenThere: meta-ti@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Usage and development list for the meta-ti layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 17:04:00 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 02:06:38PM +0200, Tasslehoff Kjappfot wrote: > On 09/01/2013 05:15 AM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > >BTW, consider this an RFC for removing the next 4.05.00.03 version as well - I > >know some people are still using it, so please speak up. > > > > We're using 4.05.00.03 for our OMAP3530 board, because that is the > latest one we've tried that actually works :) > > Last time I tried newer versions there were "instant lockup" > problems. Are any of the newer versions compatible with OMAP3530 > now? Tasslehoff, I don't think the support for OMAP3530 was specifically removed from latest versions, although I'm not sure if it got broken by accident though. Prabu? -- Denys