Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> On Jun 4, 2008, at 4:43 AM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>
>> David Gibson wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 09:33:12AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
On Jun 3, 2008, at 5:08 AM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> Kumar Gala wrote:
>> On Jun 1, 2008, at 9:03 PM, David Gibson
On Thursday 05 June 2008, Sean MacLennan wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 22:05:55 -0500
>
> Josh Boyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm not proposing we remove that. I'm just proposing that it can be
> > derived from something other than an "index" property. Fill it in
> > using a static integer th
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 06:58:30PM -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
>
> + /* get random IV */
> + get_random_bytes(req->giv, crypto_aead_ivsize(authenc));
Sorry but this is unworkable given our current RNG infrastructure.
Draining 16 bytes for every packet is going to make /dev/random
unuseable
On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 16:20 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Currently create_branch() creates a branch instruction for you, and patches
> it into the call site. In some circumstances it would be nice to be able to
> create the instruction and patch it later, and also some code might want
> to chec
Please pull from 'powerpc-next' branch of
master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/galak/powerpc.git
powerpc-next
to receive the following updates:
Documentation/powerpc/booting-without-of.txt | 49 -
arch/powerpc/boot/Makefile |3
arch/powerpc/boot/dts/asp83
On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 22:05:55 -0500
Josh Boyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not proposing we remove that. I'm just proposing that it can be
> derived from something other than an "index" property. Fill it in
> using a static integer that gets incremented for each new device
> found. It's not
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 09:26:23 -0500
Jon Loeliger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Gibson wrote:
>
> > But as I said that can be dealt with in the future without breaking
> > compatibility. Objection withdrawn.
> >
>
> And on that note, I officially implore Scott to
> re-submit his binary incl
On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 22:54:32 -0400
Sean MacLennan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 21:19:42 -0500
> "Josh Boyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > From a device tree perspective, index and cell-index are both
> > incorrect. The IIC macros don't share register blocks with anything,
>
On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 21:19:42 -0500
"Josh Boyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From a device tree perspective, index and cell-index are both
> incorrect. The IIC macros don't share register blocks with anything,
> are enumerated as unique instances per macro in the device tree, and
> should be able
On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 10:43:51 -0500
Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 10:24:15AM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
> > Stefan Roese wrote:
> > > I'm wondering what is currently recommended in the I2C device tree nodes?
> > > The
> > > current IBM I2C driver (i2c-ibm_iic.c) che
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:26:44 -0500
Jerone Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Taken from the PowerPC ISA BookIII-E specifies that DBCR0 is different
> for all others that are not ppc405 chips. So I have now chnaged the
> conditional to reflect this. Also added definitions needed for DBCR1 &
> DBCR2
Taken from the PowerPC ISA BookIII-E specifies that DBCR0 is different
for all others that are not ppc405 chips. So I have now chnaged the
conditional to reflect this. Also added definitions needed for DBCR1 &
DBCR2.
Signed-off-by: Jerone Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff --git a/include/asm-powerpc
Kevin Diggs wrote:
Hi,
When doing inline assembly, is there a way to get the compiler to
assign "extra" (one not specified for inputs and outputs) registers? In
the following:
__asm__ __volatile__ (
"addi 5,%1,-1\n"
"andc 5,
Hi,
When doing inline assembly, is there a way to get the compiler to
assign "extra" (one not specified for inputs and outputs) registers? In
the following:
__asm__ __volatile__ (
"addi 5,%1,-1\n"
"andc 5,%1,5\n"
On Wednesday 04 June 2008, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 17:22:12 +0200, Stefan Roese wrote:
> > The deprecated OCP style driver part is used by the "old" arch/ppc
> > platform. This platform is scheduled for removal in June/July this year.
> > This patch now removes the OCP driver part
On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 17:22:12 +0200, Stefan Roese wrote:
> The deprecated OCP style driver part is used by the "old" arch/ppc
> platform. This platform is scheduled for removal in June/July this year.
> This patch now removes the OCP driver part from the IBM I2C driver.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Ro
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 21:15:30 -0700 Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 14:07:20 +1000 Paul Mackerras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Looking at Linus' git tree, it's evident that some subsystems use the
> > the "[SUBSYSTEM]" notation and some use "subsystem:". If there is now
> > an edict
Sometimes we want IRQ-less CMOS RTC for the boards without (or disabled)
i8259 PIC. That is, on MPC8610HPCD i8259 is disabled, and rtc-cmos driver
will fail to probe the RTC.
To fix this, we lookup the device tree for "chrp,iic" and "pnpPNP,000"
compatible devices, and if not found we do not assig
This patch adds support for IrDA on MPC8610HPCD. IrDA platfrom hook is
used to setup IR clocks and to manage the on-board transceiver.
(The original BSP patch comes with lots of Sign offs, providing them
here.)
Signed-off-by: Xianghua Xiao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Jason Jin <[EMAIL PROTE
This patch implements GPIOLIB support for MPC8349-compatible SOC GPIOs.
MPC8610 adopted this GPIO unit, so let's place it into sysdev.
We'll need these gpios to support IrDA transceiver on MPC8610HPCD.
Signed-off-by: Anton Vorontsov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
arch/powerpc/sysdev/Kconfig
From: Zhang Wei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The driver supports SIR, MIR, FIR modes and maximum 400bps rate.
Signed-off-by: Zhang Wei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[AV: few small fixes, plus had made platform ops passing via node->data
to avoid #ifdef stuff in the fsl_soc (think DIU). ]
Signed-off-by: Ant
On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 10:24:15AM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
> Stefan Roese wrote:
> > I'm wondering what is currently recommended in the I2C device tree nodes?
> > The
> > current IBM I2C driver (i2c-ibm_iic.c) checks "index" and most FSL dts
> > files
> > use "cell-index". Some 4xx dts files i
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
>
> > So what happened to the old idea of putting the accessor function pointers
> > in the device/bus structure?
>
> Don't know. I think it sounds like overkill to replace a simple load or
> store with an indirect function call.
Indeed. *Especiall
Stefan Roese wrote:
> I'm wondering what is currently recommended in the I2C device tree nodes? The
> current IBM I2C driver (i2c-ibm_iic.c) checks "index" and most FSL dts files
> use "cell-index". Some 4xx dts files implement "cell-index" some have no
> index at all.
>
> So what should be use
The deprecated OCP style driver part is used by the "old" arch/ppc
platform. This platform is scheduled for removal in June/July this year.
This patch now removes the OCP driver part from the IBM I2C driver.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Roese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-ibm_iic.c | 1
I'm wondering what is currently recommended in the I2C device tree nodes? The
current IBM I2C driver (i2c-ibm_iic.c) checks "index" and most FSL dts files
use "cell-index". Some 4xx dts files implement "cell-index" some have no
index at all.
So what should be used here. Please advise and I'll p
David Gibson wrote:
But as I said that can be dealt with in the future without breaking
compatibility. Objection withdrawn.
And on that note, I officially implore Scott to
re-submit his binary include patch!
Sorry it's taken this long :(.
No problem; no apology needed. [*1*]
jdl
[*1*]
On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 08:40:46 -0500
Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Signed-off-by: Alessandro Zummo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Acked-by: Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Is this for 2.6.26? also which tree is this going via?
directly
On Jun 4, 2008, at 8:05 AM, Alessandro Zummo wrote:
From: Jean Delvare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Change the name of the device from "rtc-ds1374" to just "ds1374", to
match what all other RTC drivers do. I seem to remember that this name
was chosen to avoid possible confusion with an older ds1374 dr
On Jun 4, 2008, at 4:43 AM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
David Gibson wrote:
On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 09:33:12AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
On Jun 3, 2008, at 5:08 AM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
Kumar Gala wrote:
On Jun 1, 2008, at 9:03 PM, David Gibson wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 08:49:45AM
From: Jean Delvare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Change the name of the device from "rtc-ds1374" to just "ds1374", to
match what all other RTC drivers do. I seem to remember that this name
was chosen to avoid possible confusion with an older ds1374 driver,
but that driver was removed 3 months ago.
Signed-
David Gibson wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 01:54:59PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
David Gibson wrote:
What I don't like is the combination of the two. Using the /word/
form in (1) suggests that each /word/ is a lexically distinct symbol
with functions in different contexts: consider /dts-v1/, /i
On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 02:07:20PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Andrew Morton writes:
>
> > On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 04:17:39 +0400
> > Anton Vorontsov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > Please put the subsystem identifier (eg, "watchdog" and "powerpc")
> > > > outside the [], for reasons which s
> Anyway, Intel certainly seems to document that WC memory is serialized by
> any access to UC memory.
I don't believe that is actually true on Pentium Pro at least.
> So what started out as a "we can do accesses to the frame buffer more
> efficiently without anybody ever even having to kno
On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 11:52:44AM +0200, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> Hi Anton,
>
> Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 08:36:32AM +0200, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> >> This patch extends the FSL UPM NAND driver from Anton Vorontsov to
> >> support for the TQM85xx modules. Unfortu
Am Mittwoch, 4. Juni 2008 schrieb Rusty Russell:
> Two questions. Is it possible to make the timer backoff a third kind of
> notifier?
I can try. The timer handling code is sprinkled a bit in hvc_console but it
should be possible.
> And is it possible to make the dependency static, rather than
Hi Anton,
Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 08:36:32AM +0200, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>> This patch extends the FSL UPM NAND driver from Anton Vorontsov to
>> support for the TQM85xx modules. Unfortunately, the hardware does
>> not support the R/B pins of the NAND chip and theref
David Gibson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 09:33:12AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>> On Jun 3, 2008, at 5:08 AM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>>> Kumar Gala wrote:
On Jun 1, 2008, at 9:03 PM, David Gibson wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 08:49:45AM +0200, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> [snip]
On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 14:49 +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> This patch tries to change hvc_console to not use request_irq/free_irq if
> the backend does not use irqs. This allows virtio_console to use hvc_console
> without having a linker reference to request_irq/free_irq.
>
> The irq specif
Am Dienstag, 3. Juni 2008 schrieb Arnd Bergmann:
> I don't see a reason to make this data structure known to other files,
> so why not leave it in hvc_console.c?
Yes, Fixed. I moved it for a ealier version of this patch. Currently its not
necessary. Dont know if I need to move it again if I work
40 matches
Mail list logo
