On Sat, 2014-05-03 at 16:40 +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > However on my 6281 based TS-219 system there seems to be no visible PCI
> > bus when running the 3.2 kernel in the current Debian stable release
> > (which of course uses board support). Some info:
>
> The old PCI driver looks to see if the
> However on my 6281 based TS-219 system there seems to be no visible PCI
> bus when running the 3.2 kernel in the current Debian stable release
> (which of course uses board support). Some info:
The old PCI driver looks to see if there is anything on the bus, and
if not, does not register the PCI
On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 17:24 +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > back in v3.2, lspci should still work. Would that given you the
> > > information you need?
> >
> > I expect it will, yes.
>
> 3.14 with the new PCIe driver will also work. The patch was accepted
> and considered a regression so made it
On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 16:03 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 02:00 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 14:24 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 14:23 +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > What i suspect we will end up doing it dropping t
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 04:26:16PM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 17:24 +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > > > > What's wrong with the soc subsystem (drivers/base/soc.c). This
> > > > > > provides a way to export SoC through standardised interfaces.
> > > > >
> > > > > It looks
> > > > What's wrong with the soc subsystem (drivers/base/soc.c). This
> > > > provides a way to export SoC through standardised interfaces.
> > >
> > > It looks like the thing to use to me.
> > >
> > > It seems to have been around only since v3.3 though, which makes it a
> > > bit tricky to us
On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 17:24 +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > > > What's wrong with the soc subsystem (drivers/base/soc.c). This
> > > > > provides a way to export SoC through standardised interfaces.
> > > >
> > > > It looks like the thing to use to me.
> > > >
> > > > It seems to have been arou
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 02:00 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 14:24 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 14:23 +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> [...]
> > > What i suspect we will end up doing it dropping the last patch for the
> > > moment and ensuring ARCH_KIRKWOOD sti
On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 18:26 -0500, Jason Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 11:39:16AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 11:19 +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > What's wrong with the soc subsystem (drivers/base/soc.c). This
> > > provides a way to export SoC thro
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 14:07 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 21 February 2014 01:47:31 Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 16:19 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Thursday 20 February 2014 14:21:10 Ian Campbell wrote:
> >
> > > For all I know, the only interesting ixp4xx platfo
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 02:07:40PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 21 February 2014 01:47:31 Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 16:19 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Thursday 20 February 2014 14:21:10 Ian Campbell wrote:
> >
> > > For all I know, the only interesting ixp4xx
On Friday 21 February 2014 02:00:27 Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 14:24 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 14:23 +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> [...]
> > > What i suspect we will end up doing it dropping the last patch for the
> > > moment and ensuring ARCH_KIRKWOOD st
On Friday 21 February 2014 01:47:31 Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 16:19 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Thursday 20 February 2014 14:21:10 Ian Campbell wrote:
>
> > For all I know, the only interesting ixp4xx platforms are the consumer
> > products listed on http://www.nslu2-linux
On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 14:24 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 14:23 +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
[...]
> > What i suspect we will end up doing it dropping the last patch for the
> > moment and ensuring ARCH_KIRKWOOD still supports all the DT machines.
> > I think that just needs care
On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 16:19 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 20 February 2014 14:21:10 Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 14:53 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Thursday 20 February 2014 12:51:04 Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > * ixp4xx is too different from the others and I don't
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 11:39:16AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 11:19 +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > What's wrong with the soc subsystem (drivers/base/soc.c). This
> > provides a way to export SoC through standardised interfaces.
>
> It looks like the thing to u
On Thursday 20 February 2014 14:21:10 Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 14:53 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Thursday 20 February 2014 12:51:04 Ian Campbell wrote:
> > * ixp4xx is too different from the others and I don't think it's
> > possible to turn it over to multiplatform.
> >
On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 14:23 +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > What this patchset does is also make mach-mvebu part of the multi v5
> > > kernel. So you just need one kernel for all ARM v5 machines which are
> > > part of multi v5. The long term goal is that you need just two 32 ARM
> > > kernels, mul
On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 14:04 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 20 February 2014 13:18:21 Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > IOW that all of the platforms currently supported by the
> > > Debian kirkwood flavour remain supportable in the same binary after this
> > > change. It looks like it should be t
On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 14:53 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 20 February 2014 12:51:04 Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 13:18 +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 11:34:36AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > Debian has a single v7 flavour, armmp which uses the
On Thursday 20 February 2014 12:51:04 Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 13:18 +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 11:34:36AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> Debian has a single v7 flavour, armmp which uses the multi platform
> stuff. (actually there is a second armmp-lpae,
> > What this patchset does is also make mach-mvebu part of the multi v5
> > kernel. So you just need one kernel for all ARM v5 machines which are
> > part of multi v5. The long term goal is that you need just two 32 ARM
> > kernels, multi v5 and multi v7. However orion5x and mv76xx0 are not
> > ye
On Thursday 20 February 2014 13:18:21 Andrew Lunn wrote:
>
> What this patchset does is also make mach-mvebu part of the multi v5
> kernel. So you just need one kernel for all ARM v5 machines which are
> part of multi v5. The long term goal is that you need just two 32 ARM
> kernels, multi v5 and
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 11:34:36AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> (adding debian-arm/-kernel)
> On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 11:58 +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:30:17AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2014-02-07 at 18:34 +0100, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
> > > > On 02/0
On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 13:18 +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 11:34:36AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > (adding debian-arm/-kernel)
> > On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 11:58 +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:30:17AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2014-02
On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 11:19 +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> What's wrong with the soc subsystem (drivers/base/soc.c). This
> provides a way to export SoC through standardised interfaces.
It looks like the thing to use to me.
It seems to have been around only since v3.3 though, which ma
(adding debian-arm/-kernel)
On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 11:58 +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:30:17AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-02-07 at 18:34 +0100, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
> > > On 02/07/2014 12:42 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > > Now that all the device tree
27 matches
Mail list logo
