From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux)
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 12:41:36 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] ARM: imx6q: add support for IRAM
In-Reply-To: <20120103124355.GC13477@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net>
References: <1324898123-13973-1-git-send-email-jason.chen@linaro.org>
 <20111226134129.GA9014@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net>
 <20120103091015.GD2914@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
 <20120103124355.GC13477@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net>
Message-ID: <20120103124136.GQ2914@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 08:43:56PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 09:10:15AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > Why is this even specific to fsl?  Isn't it something that could be
> > specified in a totally generic way?
> > 
> > As I showed with my original set of sram patches, there is not much
> > specific about this on-board RAM: what is specific is how a SoC uses
> > it, and that's up to the rest of the SoC code.
> > 
> As I have not seen any news/updates about the sram consolidation series
> since May, I did not bring up it here.  So what's the state of the
> series?  If it shows up on some stable branch, we would be happy to
> base the work here on it.

I have no idea; as I've already said, I lost total interest in it.

What I _am_ saying though is that rather than defining some platform
specific bindings and continuing that idiotic state of affairs, we
have the chance to do things properly now: define a standard set of
DT bindings to describe on-board SRAM.

That's something which can be done with or without the sram
consolidation stuff.