Hello Thomas On Tue, 21 Dec 2010, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > WARNING: This is only a proof-of-concept, there are many known > issues. The sole purpose of this patch is to get some feedback on > whether the idea is useful or not, and whether it's worth cleaning up > the remaining issues. As Aaron and Tony commented, I too think this is really good. I note in your examples that you use "omap2" rather than splitting 2420 and 2430. It seems like it would be a good idea to deallocate 2420 data structures when booting on 2430, and vice versa. e.g., #define __omap2420_data cond_data_section(omap2420) #define __omap2430_data cond_data_section(omap2430) What do you think? - Paul -- 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
