On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 02:27:46PM +, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2011, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 15 Dec 2011, Will Deacon wrote:
> >
> > > Rather than me point each landing team at the patches, would you be able
> > > to cherry-pick
Hi Nicolas,
It seems as though some of my perf patches have ended up in the Linaro
kernel source but the fixes that I've pushed during the -rc haven't made
it:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/linaro-landing-team-freescale/+bug/893653
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-linaro-omap/+bug/84
Arnd,
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 08:15:45AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Assuming that we can prevent any funny stuff from going into such an ABI,
> we only need to worry about the warts of the current ABI for ARM specific
> considerations. The one thing that I've noticed before is that structs
> on
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 12:52:06PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 12:00:24PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > I've had a look at a bunch of the cpu_*_reset definitions and I can't see
> > any reason why they wouldn't be callable with
Hi Russell,
On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 11:14:45AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 04:50:14PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > From: Will Deacon
> >
> > This patch adds simple definitions of cpu_reset for ARMv6 and ARMv7
> > cores, wh
On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 02:12:13AM +0100, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> Minor nit,
>
> On 7/7/2011 8:50 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > From: Will Deacon
> >
> > This patch adds simple definitions of cpu_reset for ARMv6 and ARMv7
> > cores, which disable the MMU via
On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 18:57 +0100, Jesse Barker wrote:
> All these git related puns are killing me :-)
Ha, it's nice to make people laugh but I find that if I hit the stage I
don't feel as committed to it anymore.
Ok, you might find that one a bit far-fetched but I beg to differ :)
Will
__
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Tixy wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 10:16 +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> >> one reason why my understanding of the actual problem here was a bit
> >> patchy.
> >
> > :-)
>
> _not_ intentional! (if you believe me)
I don't believe you; I think you should consider
> > - On (some versions of?) Versatile Express SMP Cortex-A9 SMP boards, a CPU
> > errata (#720789) causes TLB flushes to sometime fail, which can lead to
> > random problems when running GDB in SMP mode (and probably elsewhere).
> > There is a kernel work-around for this problem activated by
> > C
Russell,
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:03:31AM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > I see no point to what is being proposed in this thread. It's _soo_
> > little code that the platforms have to implement that it really is
> > not worth the effort.
[...]
> Note also that most implementatio
Commit 1b6740a1 was marked as stable but conflicts with 93068241.
This patch resolves the conflict so that an OProfile-enabled ARM
kernel can be used.
Cc: Catalin Marinas
Cc: Linaro Dev
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon
---
Nicolas - this patch fixes an unresolved merge conflict present in the
ry at:
git://repo.or.cz/linux-2.6/linux-wd.git for-linaro-stable
Will Deacon (4):
oprofile: don't call arch exit code from init code on failure
ARM: oprofile: fix and simplify init/exit functions
ARM: perf: reword comments relating to perf_event_do_pending
ARM: perf:
Hello,
> > The only thing I can think of from my end is the hardware breakpoint patches
> > I have:
> >
> > http://www.linux-arm.org/git?p=linux-2.6-wd.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/hw-breakpoint
> >
> > I've not merged these into my Linaro branch because I'm not happy with the
> > amount of testing
Hi Nicolas,
> The Linaro freeze is imminent, and at that point a stable branch that
> won't be rebased anymore will be forked. The stable branch should only
> see bug fixes and no new features. Therefore I'd like to know if there
> is anything that should be added or removed from this tree before
14 matches
Mail list logo
