On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 03:06:20PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On 05/07/12 14:57, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> >The non-DT path for this is a huge mess, I'd rather focus on making
> >it obsolete than trying to fix it. Other than that, I agree that
> >we should be registering the ab8500 from the prcmu from both the
> >DT and the non-DT case.

> Ah, is that what you were saying Mark?

> If so, I apologise. I thought you meant register both from platform
> code. I'm happy to register the AB8500 from the DB8500 for _both_ DT
> and !DT.

Yes, that's what I was trying to say - sorry that I wasn't clear!