* David Brownell <david-b@xxxxxxxxxxx> [090117 00:31]: > On Friday 16 January 2009, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 01:27:52PM -0800, David Brownell wrote: > > > So why not just enable PM=y in the configuration? It's not > > > actually required to do much, beyond not being broken. > > > > That patch would have to go through tony > > > > arch/arm/plat-omap/include/mach/pm.h: > > > > #if !defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP730) && \ > > !defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP15XX) && \ > > !defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP16XX) && \ > > !defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP24XX) && \ > > !defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP34XX) > > #error "Power management for this processor not implemented yet" > > #endif > > I didn't realize anyone outside of TI had their hands > on OMAP4 chips yet. :) Might be worth looking what it would take to make dummy CONFIG_PM compile in mainline for mach-omap2. Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
