From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: david.jander@protonic.nl (David Jander) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 12:40:23 +0100 Subject: [PATCHv2 1/2] ARM: mx51: Implement code to allow mx51 to enter WFI In-Reply-To: <20110307180700.GQ29521@pengutronix.de> References: <1299281399-32304-1-git-send-email-Dinh.Nguyen@freescale.com> <56132A77AB93C141BF06E6B96CA6CFEA19124C@039-SN1MPN1-004.039d.mgd.msft.net> <87oc5puwg3.fsf@lebrac.rtp-net.org> <56132A77AB93C141BF06E6B96CA6CFEA193F14@039-SN1MPN1-004.039d.mgd.msft.net> <87fwqyvrzf.fsf@lebrac.rtp-net.org> <56132A77AB93C141BF06E6B96CA6CFEA1940F8@039-SN1MPN1-004.039d.mgd.msft.net> <20110307180700.GQ29521@pengutronix.de> Message-ID: <20110308124023.5a952d13@archvile> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Sascha, On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 19:07:00 +0100 "s.hauer at pengutronix.de" wrote: >[...] > > 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. Would you mind explaining (or pointing to an explanation) as to why this is not supposed to work? Given the high level of compatibility between MX51 and MX53, I'd say there must be a very good reason not to enable a single binary kernel for both. Or is this just temporary brokenness? Best regards, -- David Jander Protonic Holland.