On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> wrote: > > Pais, Allen had written, on 10/15/2009 11:53 PM, the following: >> >> a) A simple comment to all my comments: why cant we have these in bootloader and just simply leave the mux file alone? >> [Allen] Yes Nishanth, this would be a much cleaner approach. Even Santosh had suggested >> The same, if we can conclude on a approach here, I can go ahead and do the Mux Change it accordingly. > > Then lets please fix the bootloader and drop this patch. >> >> - Allen >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: linux-omap-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-omap- owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Menon, Nishanth >>> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 7:24 AM >>> To: Pais, Allen; Aguirre Rodriguez, Sergio Alberto; linux-omap > > Please try not to Top post. see [1] > > -- > Regards, > Nishanth Menon > Ref: > [1] http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/mailinglists/etiquette.php#e3 Maybe I'm missing something, but why is it more desirable to add the mux code to the bootloader instead of the kernel? Wouldn't adding it to the kernel guarantee it works regardless of the bootloader? - Cory (Repost for linux-omap -- gmail had html enabled the first itme) -- 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
