From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Cousson, Benoit" Subject: Re: [RFC 0/5] OMAP4: mux: Add the OMAP4430 ES1 support Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 22:57:23 +0200 Message-ID: <4CBCB4B3.3030207@ti.com> References: <1285319748-28976-1-git-send-email-b-cousson@ti.com> <7A436F7769CA33409C6B44B358BFFF0C014FAB2762@dlee02.ent.ti.com> <4CBCB35E.9080502@ti.com> <7A436F7769CA33409C6B44B358BFFF0C014FAB29DA@dlee02.ent.ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from devils.ext.ti.com ([198.47.26.153]:59989 "EHLO devils.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750806Ab0JRU50 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Oct 2010 16:57:26 -0400 Received: from dlep36.itg.ti.com ([157.170.170.91]) by devils.ext.ti.com (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id o9IKvPrb003506 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 15:57:25 -0500 Received: from dlep26.itg.ti.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dlep36.itg.ti.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o9IKvP15015754 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 15:57:25 -0500 (CDT) Received: from dlee73.ent.ti.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dlep26.itg.ti.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o9IKvPsX014740 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 15:57:25 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <7A436F7769CA33409C6B44B358BFFF0C014FAB29DA@dlee02.ent.ti.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: "Menon, Nishanth" Cc: "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" On 10/18/2010 10:53 PM, Menon, Nishanth wrote: >> From: Cousson, Benoit >> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 3:52 PM >> > >> >> On 10/18/2010 8:09 PM, Menon, Nishanth wrote: >>>> From: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-omap- >>>> owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Benoit Cousson >>>> >>> Ping? Is there a possibility for a v2 non-rfc ES2 support? >> >> And what about a RFC v2? With ES2 support of course :-) >> >> The changes I have done are breaking RX51 support due to the usage of >> low-level API from the mux code. >> >> For the moment I just disabled that code from the RX51, so there is no >> way I send that except in a RFC form :-( > It'd be good to evolve this further.. looks like there is a bunch of > Drivers pending posting due to "lack of mux framework".. I guess that the current code should be good enough for that, isn't it? The main API will not change. Only the low API will become forbidden. Benoit