On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 11:26 -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 10:22:50AM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > Just because the omap does it that way, doesn't mean it can't be done
> > better ;-).
>
> Agreed that platform_data is a better approach overall for holding that
> power budget. OMAP and AT91 should do so too.
>
> Sounds like someone should update the patch to (a) use a 150 mA budget,
> and (b) test for those other machines. As a near term patch, anyway.
>
> Unless there's a patch to provide and use platform_data ... but that'd
> be much more involved, since ISTR the PXA platforms don't yet have a
> mechanism to provide board-specific platform_data. (I'll suggest the
> AT91 code as a model there; it's simpler hardware than OMAP, so the
> code is more straightforward.)
The PXA platform does have an existing mechanism to pass platform data
(I added it a while back). I've added
http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/patches/viewpatch.php?id=3547/1
into the patch system replacing Pavel's version.
Cheers,
Richard
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
