From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Cousson, Benoit" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] OMAP4: hwmod data fixes and update Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 08:51:50 +0100 Message-ID: <4D01DC16.5010109@ti.com> References: <1291937615-18571-1-git-send-email-b-cousson@ti.com> <87hbem4g76.fsf@deeprootsystems.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]:45039 "EHLO devils.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751136Ab0LJHvy (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Dec 2010 02:51:54 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87hbem4g76.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Kevin Hilman Cc: "paul@pwsan.com" , "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" On 12/10/2010 1:36 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Benoit Cousson writes: > >> Hi Paul, >> >> Here is a small set of OMAP4 hwmod data updates. >> >> Re-order properly the data that were a little bit shuffled during >> the previous merge window. >> Add the new reset flags introduced in 2.6.37 and that were not >> used in the hwmod data. The OMAP2 and OMAP3 fixes should come soon. >> Fix some missing field in the GPIO OMAP4 hwmod data that I missed >> during the review. >> IVA and DSP are added just to allow the processors device creation >> at boot time and avoid the warnings. >> >> Thanks to Charu for testing the GPIO / WD_TIMER changes. >> Thanks to Govindraj for testing the UART changes. >> >> The series is based on lo/for-next (v2.6.37-rc5-66-ga2814df) and is >> available here: >> git://gitorious.org/omap-pm/linux.git for_2.6.38/hwmod_data >> >> Please note that there is a slight dependency with the following patch >> due to the name change of the iva fclk: >> OMAP4: clock data: Add missing DPLL x2 clock node >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/396612/ >> >> Tested on sdp4430 + ES2.0/ES2.1. > > As with the other series, I tried to pull this into my pm-core for > testing with all the other PM stuff we have baking for 2.6.38. > > Unfortunately, this series has conflicts with Paul's > pwrdm_prcm_[ab]_2.6.38 branches. > Could you rebase this on Paul's pwrdm_prcm_b_2.6.38 branch? OK, I will rebase all my series on top of that one. Regards, Benoit