On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > MyungJoo Ham wrote: >> >> Early S5PC110 (EVT0) chip had some issues required workaround from a >> kernel. We can add such workaround codes with this Kconfig entry. >> >> Signed-off-by: MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> arch/arm/mach-s5pv210/Kconfig | 7 +++++++ >> 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-s5pv210/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-s5pv210/Kconfig >> index 631019a..18802e7 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-s5pv210/Kconfig >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-s5pv210/Kconfig >> @@ -101,4 +101,11 @@ config MACH_SMDKC110 >> Machine support for Samsung SMDKC110 >> S5PC110(MCP) is one of package option of S5PV210 >> >> +config S5PC110_EVT0_WORKAROUND >> + bool "S5PC110 Early Chip Workaround (EVT0)" >> + help >> + Early S5PC110 (so called EVT0) has errata items that should be >> + addressed; otherwise the kernel may panic or be locked up. Enable >> + this option to execute workaround instructions. >> + >> endif >> -- > > As I said earlier, EVT0 is not real chip and not for mass production. > > Why do you submit the EVT0 patch which can only available for you? > It is better to not add code into mainline that is not going to be used. Did you read the previous mail? I explain that. The LSI focus the latest SoCs. but we got the early chip and used it. You see the chip itself but I see the product which used the chips whether for mass production or not. Actually it's management and maintenance problem. you only show the latest codes and chips to outside. but I want to maintain our board at mainline. Thank you, Kyungmin Park -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |