onsidering the vring size, keep using the 512 hard coded
value as an upper limit to avoid wacky resource tables consuming
unreasonable amount of memory.
NOTE: The number of buffers is already assumed to be symmetrical
in each direction, and that logic is unchanged.
Signed-off-by: Suman Anna
Hi Lina,
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Lina Iyer wrote:
> The lock in question is used differently than traditional locks across
> processors. This lock helps synchronizes context transition from
> non-secure to secure on the same processor.
>
> The usecase, goes like this. In cpuidle, any cor
Hi Suman,
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Suman Anna wrote:
> On 05/09/2015 02:39 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Dave Gerlach wrote:
> >> This patch uses the code removed by commit 40e575b1d0b3 ("remoteproc:
> >> remove the g
Hi Suman,
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Suman Anna wrote:
> We don't have any carveouts or usage of any external DDR, as this
> processor is used during Power Management, like cpuidle or suspend path,
> and is used to control the MPU and DDR states. The resource table is
> very simple and stra
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Lina Iyer wrote:
> On Sat, May 09 2015 at 03:25 -0600, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
>> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Lina Iyer wrote:
>> Let's discuss whether we really want to expose this functionality
>> under the same hwspinlock API or n
Hi Dave,
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Dave Gerlach wrote:
> Allow users of remoteproc the ability to get a handle to an rproc by
> passing a phandle supplied in the user's device tree node. This is
> useful in situations that require manual booting of the rproc.
>
> This patch uses the code r
Hi Dave,
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Dave Gerlach wrote:
> From: Suman Anna
>
> The rproc_da_to_va API is currently used to perform any device to
> kernel address translations to meet the different needs of the remoteproc
> core/drivers (eg: loading). The functionality is achieved within th
Hi Dave,
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Dave Gerlach wrote:
> Add a remoteproc driver to load the firmware and boot a small
> Wakeup M3 processor present on TI AM33xx and AM43xx SoCs. This
> Wakeup M3 remote processor is an integrated Cortex M3 that allows
> the SoC to enter the lowest possible
Hi Lina,
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Lina Iyer wrote:
> Some uses of the hwspinlock could be that one entity acquires the lock
> and the other entity releases the lock. This allows for a serialized
> traversal path from the locking entity to the other.
>
> For example, the cpuidle entry from
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Apologies for the delay on this.
> >
> >> > Gentle reminder. Can you please provide your ack on the bindings in this
> >&g
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 7:11 PM, Bjorn Andersson
wrote:
> Add binding documentation for the Qualcomm Hardware Mutex.
>
> Reviewed-by: Andy Gross
> Reviewed-by: Jeffrey Hugo
> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson
> ---
Both patches have been applied, thanks!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 1:18 AM, Suman Anna wrote:
> Suman Anna (3):
> remoteproc/ste: add blank lines after declarations
> remoteproc/davinci: fix quoted split string checkpatch warning
> remoteproc: fix various checkpatch warnings
Applied, thanks!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send th
Hi Suman,
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Suman Anna wrote:
> Ping, do you have any comments on this series?
I'll get to review this next week.
Thanks,
Ohad.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More ma
ith adding buffers.
>>
>> Instead, split kick out to prepare+notify calls. prepare before
>> virtio_device_ready - when we know we won't get interrupts. notify right
>> afterwards.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin
>> ---
>
> Ohad, ca
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:15 AM, Andy Gross wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 01:42:38PM -0700, Tim Bird wrote:
>
>
>
>> I'm pretty anxious about this one, as my current work has a dependency on it.
>> Virtually the entirety of the QualComm SOC work is dependent on this
>> because it's needed by
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 11:21 PM, Suman Anna wrote:
> The remoteproc driver core currently relies on iommu_present() on
> the bus the device is on, to perform MMU management. However, this
> logic doesn't scale for multi-arch, especially for processors that
> do not have an IOMMU. Replace this logi
Hi Suman,
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 4:01 AM, Suman Anna wrote:
> This is the latest version of the hwspinlock dt support series,
> rebased onto v4.0-rc1 and addressing the long discussion on the
> bindings in v7 [1]. I really hope that this series can make it
> into 4.1.
>From a quick glance this l
Hi Mark, Rob,
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 12:30 AM, Bjorn Andersson
wrote:
> Add binding documentation for the Qualcomm Hardware Mutex.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson
> ---
>
> I think the conclusion on the dt binding discussion for hwspinlocks was that
> we're down to having the #hwlock-cells i
Hi Suman,
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 11:21 PM, Suman Anna wrote:
> A remote processor may need to load certain firmware sections into
> internal memories (eg: RAM at L1 or L2 levels) for performance or
> other reasons. Introduce a new resource type (RSC_INTMEM) and add
> an associated handler functio
Hi Suman,
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 10:55 PM, Suman Anna wrote:
> > On 01/09/2015 03:21 PM, Suman Anna wrote:
> >> Hi Ohad,
> >>
> >> The following is an updated patchset addressing the previous pending
> >> comments
> >> from v1 & v2, and are rebased onto the latest 3.19-rc3 (are rc independent
>
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 7:41 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 1:29 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > In a system where you have two hwlock blocks lckA and lckB, each
> > consisting of 8 locks and you have dspB that can only access lckB
>
> This is a good ex
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 2:34 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>> Yep, will do as soon as I hear from Ohad on what to do with the patch
>> "hwspinlock/core: maintain a list of registered hwspinlock banks" that I
>> dropped from v7. Without that and dropping hwlock-base-id, I can't get
>> the translations
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>> > +static int rproc_handle_intmem(struct rproc *rproc, struct fw_rsc_intmem
>> > *rsc,
>> > + int offset, int avail)
>> > +{
>> ...
>> > + va = (__force void *)ioremap_nocache(rsc->pa, rsc->len);
>>
>> Ba
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:54 PM, Suman Anna wrote:
> My original motivation was that it would only need to be added on
> firmwares requiring support for loading into internal memories,
> otherwise, these are something left to be managed by the software
> running on the remote processor completely
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 1:29 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> In a system where you have two hwlock blocks lckA and lckB, each
> consisting of 8 locks and you have dspB that can only access lckB
This is a good example - thanks. To be able to cope with such cases we
will have to pass a hwlock block re
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> How about default to Linux id space and allow overriding that with
> a module param option if needed?
I'm not sure I'm following.
If the main point of contention is the base_id field, I'm also fine
with removing it entirely, as I'm not awar
[Resending in plain text mode - sorry]
The following changes since commit 5d01410fe4d92081f349b013a2e7a95429e4f2c9:
Linux 3.18-rc6 (2014-11-23 15:25:20 -0800)
are available in the git repository at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ohad/rpmsg.git
tags/rpmsg-3.19-next
for you t
Hi Stephen,
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Ohad,
>
> I noticed that the rpmsg tree
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ohad/rpmsg.git branch for-next
>
> has not been updated since November 2014. I am going to remove it from
> linux-next tomorrow unl
> So I don't have any issue with this, but I _do_ want to get acks from
> the person I used to pull from before I switch to pulling from another
> person.
>
> Ohad?
Acked-by: Ohad Ben-Cohen
Thanks,
Ohad.
The following changes since commit b787f68c36d49bb1d9236f403813641efa74a031:
Linux 4.1-rc1 (2015-04-26 17:59:10 -0700)
are available in the git repository at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ohad/hwspinlock.git
tags/hwspinlock-4.2
for you to fetch changes up to bd5717a4632cdec
essor
remoteproc/wkup_m3: add a remoteproc driver for TI Wakeup M3
Ohad Ben-Cohen (1):
remoteproc: fix !CONFIG_OF build breakage
Suman Anna (4):
remoteproc/ste: add blank lines after declarations
remoteproc/davinci: fix quoted split string checkpatch warning
remoteproc: fix va
Hi Stephen,
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 6:41 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Should I remove it from linux-next?
Yes, please.
Thanks,
Ohad.
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Lina Iyer wrote:
> Would you rather query the hwspinlock driver to see if the framework
> should take a s/w spinlock or not, IOW, raw-accessible or not?
Sorry, I'm afraid I rather not. This seems to make things even more
complicated without introducing any technic
Hi Lina,
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 6:05 AM, Lina Iyer wrote:
> Hi Ohad,
>
> Any comments?
Sorry, I was under the impression the discussion with Bjorn is still open.
Like Bjorn, I'm not so sure too we want to bind a specific lock to the
RAW capability since this is not a lock-specific hardware det
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> I interpreted this as you picked patch 1-4 and didn't pay more
> attention to them, but I can't find them in your kernel.org trees. So
> I've looked through them again.
>
> Please apply patch 1, 3 and 4 to your tree Ohad. I was unable to fi
201 - 235 of 235 matches
Mail list logo
