* [RFC PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: ID: Improve features detection and check
@ 2012-11-01 10:23 Ivan Khoronzhuk
2012-11-01 11:35 ` Santosh Shilimkar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ivan Khoronzhuk @ 2012-11-01 10:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Replaces several flags bearing the same meaning. There is no need
to set flags due to different omap types here, it can be checked
in appropriate places as well.
Cc: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
Cc: Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: linux-omap at vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
Cc: linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@ti.com>
---
arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c | 25 +++++++------------------
arch/arm/mach-omap2/soc.h | 8 ++------
2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
index cf2362c..3c47a19 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
@@ -28,6 +28,9 @@
#include "soc.h"
#include "control.h"
+#define OMAP4_SILICON_TYPE_STANDARD 0x01
+#define OMAP4_SILICON_TYPE_PERFORMANCE 0x02
+
static unsigned int omap_revision;
static const char *cpu_rev;
u32 omap_features;
@@ -273,25 +276,11 @@ void __init omap4xxx_check_features(void)
{
u32 si_type;
- if (cpu_is_omap443x())
- omap_features |= OMAP4_HAS_MPU_1GHZ;
-
+ si_type =
+ (read_tap_reg(OMAP4_CTRL_MODULE_CORE_STD_FUSE_PROD_ID_1) >> 16) & 0x03;
- if (cpu_is_omap446x()) {
- si_type =
- read_tap_reg(OMAP4_CTRL_MODULE_CORE_STD_FUSE_PROD_ID_1);
- switch ((si_type & (3 << 16)) >> 16) {
- case 2:
- /* High performance device */
- omap_features |= OMAP4_HAS_MPU_1_5GHZ;
- break;
- case 1:
- default:
- /* Standard device */
- omap_features |= OMAP4_HAS_MPU_1_2GHZ;
- break;
- }
- }
+ if (si_type == OMAP4_SILICON_TYPE_PERFORMANCE)
+ omap_features = OMAP4_HAS_PERF_SILICON;
}
void __init ti81xx_check_features(void)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/soc.h b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/soc.h
index 0700964..f31d907 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/soc.h
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/soc.h
@@ -435,9 +435,7 @@ extern u32 omap_features;
#define OMAP3_HAS_IO_WAKEUP BIT(6)
#define OMAP3_HAS_SDRC BIT(7)
#define OMAP3_HAS_IO_CHAIN_CTRL BIT(8)
-#define OMAP4_HAS_MPU_1GHZ BIT(9)
-#define OMAP4_HAS_MPU_1_2GHZ BIT(10)
-#define OMAP4_HAS_MPU_1_5GHZ BIT(11)
+#define OMAP4_HAS_PERF_SILICON BIT(9)
#define OMAP3_HAS_FEATURE(feat,flag) \
@@ -465,9 +463,7 @@ static inline unsigned int omap4_has_ ##feat(void) \
return omap_features & OMAP4_HAS_ ##flag; \
} \
-OMAP4_HAS_FEATURE(mpu_1ghz, MPU_1GHZ)
-OMAP4_HAS_FEATURE(mpu_1_2ghz, MPU_1_2GHZ)
-OMAP4_HAS_FEATURE(mpu_1_5ghz, MPU_1_5GHZ)
+OMAP4_HAS_FEATURE(perf_silicon, PERF_SILICON)
#endif /* __ASSEMBLY__ */
--
1.7.9.5
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [RFC PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: ID: Improve features detection and check
2012-11-01 10:23 [RFC PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: ID: Improve features detection and check Ivan Khoronzhuk
@ 2012-11-01 11:35 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2012-11-01 16:20 ` ivan.khoronzhuk
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Santosh Shilimkar @ 2012-11-01 11:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Thursday 01 November 2012 03:53 PM, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote:
> Replaces several flags bearing the same meaning. There is no need
> to set flags due to different omap types here, it can be checked
> in appropriate places as well.
>
> Cc: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
> Cc: Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
> Cc: linux-omap at vger.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> Cc: linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@ti.com>
> ---
> arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c | 25 +++++++------------------
> arch/arm/mach-omap2/soc.h | 8 ++------
> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
> index cf2362c..3c47a19 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
> @@ -28,6 +28,9 @@
> #include "soc.h"
> #include "control.h"
>
> +#define OMAP4_SILICON_TYPE_STANDARD 0x01
> +#define OMAP4_SILICON_TYPE_PERFORMANCE 0x02
> +
> static unsigned int omap_revision;
> static const char *cpu_rev;
> u32 omap_features;
> @@ -273,25 +276,11 @@ void __init omap4xxx_check_features(void)
> {
> u32 si_type;
>
> - if (cpu_is_omap443x())
> - omap_features |= OMAP4_HAS_MPU_1GHZ;
> -
> + si_type =
> + (read_tap_reg(OMAP4_CTRL_MODULE_CORE_STD_FUSE_PROD_ID_1) >> 16) & 0x03;
>
> - if (cpu_is_omap446x()) {
> - si_type =
> - read_tap_reg(OMAP4_CTRL_MODULE_CORE_STD_FUSE_PROD_ID_1);
> - switch ((si_type & (3 << 16)) >> 16) {
> - case 2:
> - /* High performance device */
> - omap_features |= OMAP4_HAS_MPU_1_5GHZ;
> - break;
> - case 1:
> - default:
> - /* Standard device */
> - omap_features |= OMAP4_HAS_MPU_1_2GHZ;
> - break;
> - }
> - }
> + if (si_type == OMAP4_SILICON_TYPE_PERFORMANCE)
> + omap_features = OMAP4_HAS_PERF_SILICON;
Well the detection isn't for performance/standard but there are some
features depend on it. For example 1 GHz doesn't DPLL DCC enable feature
where as 1.2 GHz, 1.5 GHz doesn't need. This is the main reason this
information is also effused. Have you considered this aspect while
creating this patch ?
Regards
Santosh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [RFC PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: ID: Improve features detection and check
2012-11-01 11:35 ` Santosh Shilimkar
@ 2012-11-01 16:20 ` ivan.khoronzhuk
2012-11-01 16:35 ` Santosh Shilimkar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: ivan.khoronzhuk @ 2012-11-01 16:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On 11/01/2012 01:35 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> On Thursday 01 November 2012 03:53 PM, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote:
>> Replaces several flags bearing the same meaning. There is no need
>> to set flags due to different omap types here, it can be checked
>> in appropriate places as well.
>>
>> Cc: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
>> Cc: Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
>> Cc: linux-omap at vger.kernel.org
>> Cc: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
>> Cc: linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org
>> Signed-off-by: Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@ti.com>
>> ---
>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c | 25 +++++++------------------
>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/soc.h | 8 ++------
>> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
>> index cf2362c..3c47a19 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
>> @@ -28,6 +28,9 @@
>> #include "soc.h"
>> #include "control.h"
>>
>> +#define OMAP4_SILICON_TYPE_STANDARD 0x01
>> +#define OMAP4_SILICON_TYPE_PERFORMANCE 0x02
>> +
>> static unsigned int omap_revision;
>> static const char *cpu_rev;
>> u32 omap_features;
>> @@ -273,25 +276,11 @@ void __init omap4xxx_check_features(void)
>> {
>> u32 si_type;
>>
>> - if (cpu_is_omap443x())
>> - omap_features |= OMAP4_HAS_MPU_1GHZ;
>> -
>> + si_type =
>> + (read_tap_reg(OMAP4_CTRL_MODULE_CORE_STD_FUSE_PROD_ID_1) >> 16)
>> & 0x03;
>>
>> - if (cpu_is_omap446x()) {
>> - si_type =
>> - read_tap_reg(OMAP4_CTRL_MODULE_CORE_STD_FUSE_PROD_ID_1);
>> - switch ((si_type & (3 << 16)) >> 16) {
>> - case 2:
>> - /* High performance device */
>> - omap_features |= OMAP4_HAS_MPU_1_5GHZ;
>> - break;
>> - case 1:
>> - default:
>> - /* Standard device */
>> - omap_features |= OMAP4_HAS_MPU_1_2GHZ;
>> - break;
>> - }
>> - }
>> + if (si_type == OMAP4_SILICON_TYPE_PERFORMANCE)
>> + omap_features = OMAP4_HAS_PERF_SILICON;
>
> Well the detection isn't for performance/standard but there are some
> features depend on it. For example 1 GHz doesn't DPLL DCC enable feature
> where as 1.2 GHz, 1.5 GHz doesn't need. This is the main reason this
> information is also effused. Have you considered this aspect while
> creating this patch ?
>
> Regards
> Santosh
>
I had considered it. There is no dependency on the features.
DCC usage depends on asked frequency on the fly, not from the features.
Depending on "performance/standard" feature the available frequencies
should be chosen in places where they are needed, for example while
initializing OPPs.
Currently we have several features while it is only one indeed.
--
Regards,
Ivan Khoronzhuk
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [RFC PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: ID: Improve features detection and check
2012-11-01 16:20 ` ivan.khoronzhuk
@ 2012-11-01 16:35 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2012-11-01 17:06 ` Nishanth Menon
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Santosh Shilimkar @ 2012-11-01 16:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Thursday 01 November 2012 09:50 PM, ivan.khoronzhuk wrote:
> On 11/01/2012 01:35 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> On Thursday 01 November 2012 03:53 PM, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote:
>>> Replaces several flags bearing the same meaning. There is no need
>>> to set flags due to different omap types here, it can be checked
>>> in appropriate places as well.
>>>
>>> Cc: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
>>> Cc: Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
>>> Cc: linux-omap at vger.kernel.org
>>> Cc: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
>>> Cc: linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org
>>> Signed-off-by: Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@ti.com>
>>> ---
>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c | 25 +++++++------------------
>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/soc.h | 8 ++------
>>> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
>>> index cf2362c..3c47a19 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
>>> @@ -28,6 +28,9 @@
>>> #include "soc.h"
>>> #include "control.h"
>>>
>>> +#define OMAP4_SILICON_TYPE_STANDARD 0x01
>>> +#define OMAP4_SILICON_TYPE_PERFORMANCE 0x02
>>> +
>>> static unsigned int omap_revision;
>>> static const char *cpu_rev;
>>> u32 omap_features;
>>> @@ -273,25 +276,11 @@ void __init omap4xxx_check_features(void)
>>> {
>>> u32 si_type;
>>>
>>> - if (cpu_is_omap443x())
>>> - omap_features |= OMAP4_HAS_MPU_1GHZ;
>>> -
>>> + si_type =
>>> + (read_tap_reg(OMAP4_CTRL_MODULE_CORE_STD_FUSE_PROD_ID_1) >> 16)
>>> & 0x03;
>>>
>>> - if (cpu_is_omap446x()) {
>>> - si_type =
>>> - read_tap_reg(OMAP4_CTRL_MODULE_CORE_STD_FUSE_PROD_ID_1);
>>> - switch ((si_type & (3 << 16)) >> 16) {
>>> - case 2:
>>> - /* High performance device */
>>> - omap_features |= OMAP4_HAS_MPU_1_5GHZ;
>>> - break;
>>> - case 1:
>>> - default:
>>> - /* Standard device */
>>> - omap_features |= OMAP4_HAS_MPU_1_2GHZ;
>>> - break;
>>> - }
>>> - }
>>> + if (si_type == OMAP4_SILICON_TYPE_PERFORMANCE)
>>> + omap_features = OMAP4_HAS_PERF_SILICON;
>>
>> Well the detection isn't for performance/standard but there are some
>> features depend on it. For example 1 GHz doesn't DPLL DCC enable feature
>> where as 1.2 GHz, 1.5 GHz doesn't need. This is the main reason this
>> information is also effused. Have you considered this aspect while
>> creating this patch ?
>>
>> Regards
>> Santosh
>>
>
> I had considered it. There is no dependency on the features.
> DCC usage depends on asked frequency on the fly, not from the features.
> Depending on "performance/standard" feature the available frequencies
> should be chosen in places where they are needed, for example while
> initializing OPPs.
>
You are correct about the way DCC is handled in the clock code. Infact
all these features like L2CACHE, SGX, IVA etc is more for to display
boot messages.
> Currently we have several features while it is only one indeed.
>
1GHz, 1.2GHz, 1.5 GHz are not same since the silicon capability itself
is different.
git blame tells me that Nishant has sent this update so looping him
if above differentiation in boot log helps.
Nishant,
What's your take on removing above freq prints and marking
those silicon as performance silicons as the $subject patch does ?
Regards
Santosh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [RFC PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: ID: Improve features detection and check
2012-11-01 16:35 ` Santosh Shilimkar
@ 2012-11-01 17:06 ` Nishanth Menon
2012-11-01 18:28 ` Santosh Shilimkar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Nishanth Menon @ 2012-11-01 17:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On 22:05-20121101, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> On Thursday 01 November 2012 09:50 PM, ivan.khoronzhuk wrote:
> >On 11/01/2012 01:35 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> >>On Thursday 01 November 2012 03:53 PM, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote:
> >>>Replaces several flags bearing the same meaning. There is no need
> >>>to set flags due to different omap types here, it can be checked
> >>>in appropriate places as well.
> >>>
> >>>Cc: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
> >>>Cc: Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
> >>>Cc: linux-omap at vger.kernel.org
> >>>Cc: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> >>>Cc: linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org
> >>>Signed-off-by: Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@ti.com>
> >>>---
> >>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c | 25 +++++++------------------
> >>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/soc.h | 8 ++------
> >>> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>>diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
> >>>index cf2362c..3c47a19 100644
> >>>--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
> >>>+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
> >>>@@ -28,6 +28,9 @@
> >>> #include "soc.h"
> >>> #include "control.h"
> >>>
> >>>+#define OMAP4_SILICON_TYPE_STANDARD 0x01
> >>>+#define OMAP4_SILICON_TYPE_PERFORMANCE 0x02
> >>>+
> >>> static unsigned int omap_revision;
> >>> static const char *cpu_rev;
> >>> u32 omap_features;
> >>>@@ -273,25 +276,11 @@ void __init omap4xxx_check_features(void)
> >>> {
> >>> u32 si_type;
> >>>
> >>>- if (cpu_is_omap443x())
> >>>- omap_features |= OMAP4_HAS_MPU_1GHZ;
> >>>-
> >>>+ si_type =
> >>>+ (read_tap_reg(OMAP4_CTRL_MODULE_CORE_STD_FUSE_PROD_ID_1) >> 16)
> >>>& 0x03;
> >>>
> >>>- if (cpu_is_omap446x()) {
> >>>- si_type =
> >>>- read_tap_reg(OMAP4_CTRL_MODULE_CORE_STD_FUSE_PROD_ID_1);
> >>>- switch ((si_type & (3 << 16)) >> 16) {
> >>>- case 2:
> >>>- /* High performance device */
> >>>- omap_features |= OMAP4_HAS_MPU_1_5GHZ;
> >>>- break;
> >>>- case 1:
> >>>- default:
> >>>- /* Standard device */
> >>>- omap_features |= OMAP4_HAS_MPU_1_2GHZ;
> >>>- break;
> >>>- }
> >>>- }
> >>>+ if (si_type == OMAP4_SILICON_TYPE_PERFORMANCE)
> >>>+ omap_features = OMAP4_HAS_PERF_SILICON;
> >>
> >>Well the detection isn't for performance/standard but there are some
> >>features depend on it. For example 1 GHz doesn't DPLL DCC enable feature
> >>where as 1.2 GHz, 1.5 GHz doesn't need. This is the main reason this
> >>information is also effused. Have you considered this aspect while
> >>creating this patch ?
> >>
> >>Regards
> >>Santosh
> >>
> >
> >I had considered it. There is no dependency on the features.
> >DCC usage depends on asked frequency on the fly, not from the features.
> >Depending on "performance/standard" feature the available frequencies
> >should be chosen in places where they are needed, for example while
> >initializing OPPs.
> >
> You are correct about the way DCC is handled in the clock code. Infact
> all these features like L2CACHE, SGX, IVA etc is more for to display
> boot messages.
>
> >Currently we have several features while it is only one indeed.
> >
> 1GHz, 1.2GHz, 1.5 GHz are not same since the silicon capability itself
> is different.
>
> git blame tells me that Nishant has sent this update so looping him
> if above differentiation in boot log helps.
>
> Nishant,
> What's your take on removing above freq prints and marking
> those silicon as performance silicons as the $subject patch does ?
>
> Regards
> Santosh
Yes $subject patch is a better approach compared to having freq based
handling which just increases the number of macros we need to enable
depending on SoC variants that we spin off the main SoC. This also
allows us to conserve the features bitfield ahead as well.
I hate to admit, but after a couple of generations of SoC spinoffs,
my original logic is proving to be was pretty short sighted,
unfortunately :(
So, approach
Acked-by: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>
--
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [RFC PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: ID: Improve features detection and check
2012-11-01 17:06 ` Nishanth Menon
@ 2012-11-01 18:28 ` Santosh Shilimkar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Santosh Shilimkar @ 2012-11-01 18:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Thursday 01 November 2012 10:36 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 22:05-20121101, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> On Thursday 01 November 2012 09:50 PM, ivan.khoronzhuk wrote:
>>> On 11/01/2012 01:35 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>>>> On Thursday 01 November 2012 03:53 PM, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote:
>>>>> Replaces several flags bearing the same meaning. There is no need
>>>>> to set flags due to different omap types here, it can be checked
>>>>> in appropriate places as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cc: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
>>>>> Cc: Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
>>>>> Cc: linux-omap at vger.kernel.org
>>>>> Cc: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
>>>>> Cc: linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@ti.com>
>>>>> ---
[..]
>>>>> + if (si_type == OMAP4_SILICON_TYPE_PERFORMANCE)
>>>>> + omap_features = OMAP4_HAS_PERF_SILICON;
>>>>
>>>> Well the detection isn't for performance/standard but there are some
>>>> features depend on it. For example 1 GHz doesn't DPLL DCC enable feature
>>>> where as 1.2 GHz, 1.5 GHz doesn't need. This is the main reason this
>>>> information is also effused. Have you considered this aspect while
>>>> creating this patch ?
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Santosh
>>>>
>>>
>>> I had considered it. There is no dependency on the features.
>>> DCC usage depends on asked frequency on the fly, not from the features.
>>> Depending on "performance/standard" feature the available frequencies
>>> should be chosen in places where they are needed, for example while
>>> initializing OPPs.
>>>
>> You are correct about the way DCC is handled in the clock code. Infact
>> all these features like L2CACHE, SGX, IVA etc is more for to display
>> boot messages.
>>
>>> Currently we have several features while it is only one indeed.
>>>
>> 1GHz, 1.2GHz, 1.5 GHz are not same since the silicon capability itself
>> is different.
>>
>> git blame tells me that Nishant has sent this update so looping him
>> if above differentiation in boot log helps.
>>
>> Nishant,
>> What's your take on removing above freq prints and marking
>> those silicon as performance silicons as the $subject patch does ?
>>
>> Regards
>> Santosh
> Yes $subject patch is a better approach compared to having freq based
> handling which just increases the number of macros we need to enable
> depending on SoC variants that we spin off the main SoC. This also
> allows us to conserve the features bitfield ahead as well.
>
> I hate to admit, but after a couple of generations of SoC spinoffs,
> my original logic is proving to be was pretty short sighted,
> unfortunately :(
>
> So, approach
> Acked-by: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>
>
Thanks Nishant for clarification and ack.
With the clarification I also like the subject patch.
Feel free add.
Acked-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-11-01 18:28 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-11-01 10:23 [RFC PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: ID: Improve features detection and check Ivan Khoronzhuk
2012-11-01 11:35 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2012-11-01 16:20 ` ivan.khoronzhuk
2012-11-01 16:35 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2012-11-01 17:06 ` Nishanth Menon
2012-11-01 18:28 ` Santosh Shilimkar
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).