From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tony Lindgren Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: sleep: byteswap data for big-endian Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:47:25 -0800 Message-ID: <20140213174724.GB27022@atomide.com> References: <52D404DE.2020806@ti.com> <52D55CE5.1060902@ti.com> <52D5A60C.7080800@ti.com> <52D5CBC9.5020201@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mho-03-ewr.mailhop.org ([204.13.248.66]:34171 "EHLO mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752696AbaBMRrn (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Feb 2014 12:47:43 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52D5CBC9.5020201@ti.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Santosh Shilimkar Cc: Nishanth Menon , Linaro Kernel , Russell King , Patch Tracking , Taras Kondratiuk , Victor Kamensky , open list , Tero Kristo , Linaro Networking , "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" * Santosh Shilimkar [140114 15:46]: > On Tuesday 14 January 2014 04:13 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote: > > I haven't looked at patch myself but as you pointed out if it adds > dead code and makes the code un-readable then probably that something > we shouldn't merge. Yeah it seems the assembly parts should be done in more generic way using macros so the same setup can then be used for other SoCs. For the other trivial changes, let's try to get them merged to shrink down the patchset. Regards, Tony From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tony@atomide.com (Tony Lindgren) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:47:25 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: sleep: byteswap data for big-endian In-Reply-To: <52D5CBC9.5020201@ti.com> References: <52D404DE.2020806@ti.com> <52D55CE5.1060902@ti.com> <52D5A60C.7080800@ti.com> <52D5CBC9.5020201@ti.com> Message-ID: <20140213174724.GB27022@atomide.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org * Santosh Shilimkar [140114 15:46]: > On Tuesday 14 January 2014 04:13 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote: > > I haven't looked at patch myself but as you pointed out if it adds > dead code and makes the code un-readable then probably that something > we shouldn't merge. Yeah it seems the assembly parts should be done in more generic way using macros so the same setup can then be used for other SoCs. For the other trivial changes, let's try to get them merged to shrink down the patchset. Regards, Tony