From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Wed, 04 Feb 2015 11:19:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from arrakis.dune.hu ([78.24.191.176]:59644 "EHLO arrakis.dune.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S27011554AbbBDKThpesu0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Feb 2015 11:19:37 +0100 Received: from arrakis.dune.hu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arrakis.dune.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96D84283FEF; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 11:17:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from dicker-alter.lan (p548C81C6.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.140.129.198]) by arrakis.dune.hu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 11:17:03 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <54D1F248.4090406@openwrt.org> Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 11:19:52 +0100 From: John Crispin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Bolle , Wim Van Sebroeck , Ralf Baechle CC: Valentin Rothberg , Guenter Roeck , linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: watchdog: SOC_MT7621? References: <1423044809.23894.65.camel@x220> In-Reply-To: <1423044809.23894.65.camel@x220> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 45644 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: blogic@openwrt.org Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: linux-mips X-List-ID: linux-mips List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: linux-mips On 04/02/2015 11:13, Paul Bolle wrote: > messages. Since I haven't received replies on other, more serious > issues in over three months I assume John has disappeared.) into thin air, *pooff* > Is SOC_MT7621 still being worked on? yes we dropped the series as it collided with the gic rework that chromiun.org was working on. i hope to push it during the next merge window. the 1004k support has just been flaky till now as there was never any real silicon to test it on. the chromium people really did a good job at making the gic code nicer. quite an impressive Cc list you have there John