Hi Linus !
The following changes since commit 94aca1dac6f6d21f4b07e4864baf7768cabcc6e7:
Linus Torvalds (1):
Linux 2.6.27-rc8
are available in the git repository at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/benh/powerpc.git merge
Those are two fixes for regressions introduced re
..wasn't the real issue for the device tree to get the firmware right?
R&B
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 8:12 PM, David Gibson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 05:18:54PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 01:43:29PM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
>> > On Sun, Sep 28,
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 05:18:54PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 01:43:29PM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 08:30:56PM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
> > >
> > > Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 21:09 -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
> >
Mathieu,
> We need a marker_synchronize_unregister() before the end of exit() to
> make sure every probe callers have exited the non preemptible section
> and thus are not executing the probe code anymore.
Looks good - added to spufs.git.
Cheers,
Jeremy
Hello André,
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:50 PM, André Schwarz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Leon,
>
> you're right.
> PORESET is just there to prevent the core from running as long as power may
> be unstable and/or PLLs are out of lock.
> HRESET is the signal that should reset everything. I did it o
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 05:04:22PM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 10:14:18AM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
> >> Shouldn't the driver already know it is being used on a BE machine?
> >
> > No. Endianness of the
Hi Olof,
I see code in arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c . But only
cbe_machine_check_handler() is the only function assigned to
ppc_md.machine_check_exception. Which is also not doing any recovery. It
just dumps the registers and return 0. Which would cause system Panic.
Could you please point me
Hello all,
not Linux related per se*, but I wonder how your board designs deal
with the reset circuitry for embedded PowerPC processors (MPC8313E in
my case).
My requirement is that both a processor-external hard reset and
processor-internal hard reset must both reset the boot device NOR
FlashROM,
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 02:00:06PM -0700, Tirumala Reddy Marri wrote:
> Olof,
> Thanks for the response.
>
> Is there a piece of code in Linux which does the Machine check
> recovery and continue normal execution ?
Yes, there is. Several pieces, actually.
-Olof
___
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 10:14:18AM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
>> Shouldn't the driver already know it is being used on a BE machine?
>
> No. Endianness of the CPU is not necessarily the same as the endianness
> of device registe
Olof,
Thanks for the response.
Is there a piece of code in Linux which does the Machine check
recovery and continue normal execution ?
Thanks and Regards,
Marri
-Original Message-
From: Olof Johansson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 11:05 AM
To: Tirumala R
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 10:14:18AM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
> Shouldn't the driver already know it is being used on a BE machine?
No. Endianness of the CPU is not necessarily the same as the endianness
of device registers.
For example, PCI OHCI on a big-endian host.
-Scott
__
* Milton Miller | 2008-09-23 20:24:02 [-0500]:
>If you have any questions about kdump or what needs to happen,
>please feel free to contact me either by email or on irc (sometimes
>I use mdm other times the email login as my nick, and when connected
>I tend to leave it well past the hours I am at
We need a marker_synchronize_unregister() before the end of exit() to make sure
every probe callers have exited the non preemptible section and thus are not
executing the probe code anymore.
Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: Jeremy Kerr <[
On Sep 29, 2008, at 1:22 PM, Remi Machet wrote:
I agree. Is someone already working on that or should I do it ?
Remi
I don't believe anyone is working on it. Also, top posting is frowned
about.
- k
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@oz
I agree. Is someone already working on that or should I do it ?
Remi
On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 13:03 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> On Sep 29, 2008, at 12:26 PM, Remi Machet wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I rewrote dma-noncoherent.c and I am looking for people to review
> > and test it
> > on various platf
On Sep 29, 2008, at 12:26 PM, Remi Machet wrote:
Hi,
I rewrote dma-noncoherent.c and I am looking for people to review
and test it
on various platforms that use it to make sure I did not introduce
any bug.
The platforms affected by this change are those that define
CONFIG_NOT_COHERENT_CAC
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 10:05:41AM -0700, Tirumala Reddy Marri wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I had to bring up a PPC based SOC with L1 dcache disabled. I did that
> and tried to boot Linux using RAMDISK/NFS mount. In RAMDISK I see the
> file system errors. In case of NFS mount I see error saying failed to
Hi,
I rewrote dma-noncoherent.c and I am looking for people to review and test it
on various platforms that use it to make sure I did not introduce any bug.
The platforms affected by this change are those that define
CONFIG_NOT_COHERENT_CACHE:
ppc44x
walnut
makalu
kilauea
ep405
adder875
ep88xc
ta
Hi,
I had to bring up a PPC based SOC with L1 dcache disabled. I did that
and tried to boot Linux using RAMDISK/NFS mount. In RAMDISK I see the
file system errors. In case of NFS mount I see error saying failed to
load ld.so library.
Could you guys please share thoughts what are the differe
> "Sven" == Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi,
>> This, of course, is exactly why I *don't* recommend embedded platforms
>> move to including the device tree in the flashed firmware. Keeping
>> the device tree in the bootwrapper means that it *is* updated with the
>> kernel and
On Sep 24, 2008, at 10:00 AM, Kumar Gala wrote:
The math emulation code is centered around a set of generic macros
that
provide the core of the emulation that are shared by the various
architectures and other projects (like glibc). Each arch implements
its
own sfp-machine.h to specific va
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 01:43:29PM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 08:30:56PM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
> >
> > Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 21:09 -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
> Last time I noticed it was working was about ten days ago. I don't use
>
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:11:47AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> We need a marker_synchronize_unregister() before the end of exit() to make
> sure
> every probe callers have exited the non preemptible section and thus are not
> executing the probe code anymore.
Looks good.
___
> "Jon" == Jon Smirl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi,
Jon> Can u-boot handle the wrapped DTB? I'm using a pointer to kernel
Jon> and one to DTB when booting from u-boot.
>>
>> See my recent (nacked by Wolfgang, but sane in principle) patch for
>> uImage. support:
>>
>> http://patchwor
Hi,I have some issues with the 8349emitx board.I achieved to run the board with the supplied LTIB cd, witch builds linux 2.6.13.the board is working well.I downloaded the lasted ltib ( from bitshrine.org ) and the lasted kernel 2.6.26.The last kernel seems supporting this board except with the sata
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 08:12:11AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> On Sep 24, 2008, at 4:54 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
>> Please pull from 'dma' branch of
>>
>> (forgot linuxppc-dev on first go around)
>>
>> master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/galak/powerpc.git dma
>>
>> to receive the follo
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Peter Korsgaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Jon" == Jon Smirl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Hi,
>
> Jon> How do I adjust my build to put the DTB into a wrapper? I'm
> Jon> based on the pcm030 makefile and it assumes the DTB is built
> Jon> externally.
>
On Sep 29, 2008, at 7:35 AM, Martyn Welch wrote:
Support for the SBC610 VPX Single Board Computer from GE Fanuc
(PowerPC
MPC8641D).
Fixup to correctly reconfigure USB, provided by an NEC uPD720101,
after
device is reset. This requires a set of chip specific registers in the
devices config
On Sep 24, 2008, at 4:53 PM, Becky Bruce wrote:
For many of the embedded boards, "model" and "Machine" are printing
the same thing; remove the redundant code and allow the generic
show_cpuinfo to print the model information.
Signed-off-by: Becky Bruce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
arch/powerpc/platf
On Sep 24, 2008, at 4:53 PM, Becky Bruce wrote:
For many of the embedded boards, "model" and "Machine" are printing
the same thing; remove the redundant code and allow the generic
show_cpuinfo to print the model information.
Signed-off-by: Becky Bruce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
arch/powerpc/platf
On Sep 29, 2008, at 8:56 AM, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
mpc83xx_wdt is the OF driver now, so we don't need fsl_soc
constructor.
Signed-off-by: Anton Vorontsov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
Just resending the following patch:
http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2008-May/056253.html
arch/powerpc
> "Jon" == Jon Smirl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi,
Jon> How do I adjust my build to put the DTB into a wrapper? I'm
Jon> based on the pcm030 makefile and it assumes the DTB is built
Jon> externally.
Jon> Can u-boot handle the wrapped DTB? I'm using a pointer to kernel
Jon> and one to
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:53:34 -0500
Becky Bruce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For many of the embedded boards, "model" and "Machine" are printing
> the same thing; remove the redundant code and allow the generic
> show_cpuinfo to print the model information.
>
No prob.
> Signed-off-by: Becky Bruce
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 11:43 PM, David Gibson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 08:30:56PM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
>>
>> Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 21:09 -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
> Last time I noticed it was working was about ten days ago. I don
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 5:53 PM, Becky Bruce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For many of the embedded boards, "model" and "Machine" are printing
> the same thing; remove the redundant code and allow the generic
> show_cpuinfo to print the model information.
Sounds good to me. Thanks for changing the
Kumar Gala wrote:
> On Sep 24, 2008, at 4:53 PM, Becky Bruce wrote:
>
>> For many of the embedded boards, "model" and "Machine" are printing
>> the same thing; remove the redundant code and allow the generic
>> show_cpuinfo to print the model information.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Becky Bruce <[EMAIL
mpc83xx_wdt is the OF driver now, so we don't need fsl_soc constructor.
Signed-off-by: Anton Vorontsov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
Just resending the following patch:
http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2008-May/056253.html
arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_soc.c | 47
On Sep 24, 2008, at 4:53 PM, Becky Bruce wrote:
For many of the embedded boards, "model" and "Machine" are printing
the same thing; remove the redundant code and allow the generic
show_cpuinfo to print the model information.
Signed-off-by: Becky Bruce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
arch/powerpc/platf
Roland McGrath wrote:
I certainly have no objection in principle. I doubt that any x86 userland
apps expect certain si_code values for SIGTRAP now, since the existing
values are not of any real use. (Signal handlers get the thread.trap_no and
thread.error_code values from hardware to guess from
When no irq specified the pata_of_platform fills the irq_res with -1,
which is wrong to do for two reasons:
1. By definition, 'no irq' should be IRQ 0, not some negative integer;
2. pata_platform checks for irq_res.start > 0, but since irq_res.start
is unsigned type, the check will be true for
On Sep 24, 2008, at 4:54 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
Please pull from 'dma' branch of
(forgot linuxppc-dev on first go around)
master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/galak/powerpc.git dma
to receive the following updates:
arch/powerpc/include/asm/device.h |3
arch/powerpc/in
Support for the SBC610 VPX Single Board Computer from GE Fanuc (PowerPC
MPC8641D).
Fixup to correctly reconfigure USB, provided by an NEC uPD720101, after
device is reset. This requires a set of chip specific registers in the
devices configuration space to be correctly written, enabling all ports
rtas_log_read() doesn't check file flags for O_NONBLOCK and blocks
non-blocking reader of /proc/ppc64/rtas/error_log if there's no data
available. Patch makes sure that non-blocking reader will never
blocks.
Also rtas_log_read() returns now with ENODATA to prevent suspending of
process in wait_eve
> >> Signed-off-by: David Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >Acked-by: Josh Boyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >Paul, I can include this in my 'next' branch if you aren't opposed.
> >I'll have another set of patches going in there today/tomorrow.
>
> Er... on second thought, this actually fixes a reg
On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 08:24 +0200, Sébastien Chrétien wrote:
> Hello,
> I have a question about Device Tree.
> Is Device Tree found only only on Linux Powerpc ?
Sparc also uses open firmware and shares some of the device-tree
handling code with powerpc in linux. Other operating systems on those
pl
Hello.
Sébastien Chrétien wrote:
I have a question about Device Tree.
Is Device Tree found only only on Linux Powerpc ?
Not only Linux as it's a part of Open Firmware which is also used at
least on SPARC.
WBR, Sergei
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing
Hello.
Sébastien Chrétien wrote:
Hello,
I have a question about Device Tree.
Is Device Tree found only only on Linux Powerpc ?
Not only Linux as it's a part of Open Firmware which is also used at
least on SPARC.
WBR, Sergei
___
Linuxppc-dev ma
48 matches
Mail list logo
