Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754311Ab1CHLkL (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Mar 2011 06:40:11 -0500 Received: from protonic.xs4all.nl ([213.84.116.84]:22498 "EHLO protonic.prtnl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753652Ab1CHLkI (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Mar 2011 06:40:08 -0500 Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 12:40:23 +0100 From: David Jander To: "s.hauer@pengutronix.de" Cc: Nguyen Dinh-R00091 , "linux@arm.linux.org.uk" , Zhang Lily-R58066 , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Vaidyanathan Ranjani-RA5478 , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de" , Arnaud Patard Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/2] ARM: mx51: Implement code to allow mx51 to enter WFI Message-ID: <20110308124023.5a952d13@archvile> 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> Organization: Protonic Holland X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.4 (GTK+ 2.20.1; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 995 Lines: 28 Hi Sascha, On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 19:07:00 +0100 "s.hauer@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. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/