Re: pmac_nvram problems

2005-08-19 Thread Benjamin Herrenschmidt
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 12:55 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 07:40 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > Just a question: Why do you want to have the nvram low level code as a > > module ? It's sort-of an intergral part of the arch code ... > > Because I Can (TM). Actually

Re: pmac_nvram problems

2005-08-19 Thread Johannes Berg
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 07:40 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > Just a question: Why do you want to have the nvram low level code as a > module ? It's sort-of an intergral part of the arch code ... Because I Can (TM). Actually, I just did this because of the suspend issue where OSX would reset

Re: pmac_nvram problems

2005-08-18 Thread Benjamin Herrenschmidt
On Thu, 2005-08-18 at 15:03 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Thu, 2005-08-18 at 15:00 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > There used to be cases where we used the nvram stuff before kmalloc() > > was available. I'll check if this is still the case. > > Ah, ok. Makes sense. In that case I s

Re: pmac_nvram problems

2005-08-18 Thread Johannes Berg
On Thu, 2005-08-18 at 15:00 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > There used to be cases where we used the nvram stuff before kmalloc() > was available. I'll check if this is still the case. Ah, ok. Makes sense. In that case I suppose it must be #ifdef'ed for the module case. > Well... the dri

Re: pmac_nvram problems

2005-08-17 Thread Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> I'm not sure why alloc_bootmem is used at all (is the nvram larger than > a couple of pages on any machine? And if it is, should it really be > cached in RAM?), but I think it should be sufficient to just use kmalloc > (well, it works for me). There used to be cases where we used the nvram stuf