On Sat Jan 24 at 07:59:47 EST in 2009, Benjamin Walsh wrote:
I am trying to use kexec with a crash dump kernel on a Maple board
(Motorola
ATCA6101 to be precise). This board is running a two-CPU PPC970FX. I am
running a 2.6.27-10 kernel and have tried both older kexec-tools and
the
newest ones
Dear Rob Gubler,
in message you
wrote:
>
> I'm an ELDK 4.2 user. I'm trying to compile the ebony.dts file included in
> the 2.6.24 kernel but the Device Tree Compiler, dtc, complains of a syntax
> error.
Yes, there is a version conflict. The 2.6.24 kernel still uses an old
dts format, which is
Hello,
I'm an ELDK 4.2 user. I'm trying to compile the ebony.dts file included in
the 2.6.24 kernel but the Device Tree Compiler, dtc, complains of a syntax
error.
ELDK provides me with a binary for dtc, but the command line arguments
specided by the ELDK documentation are not supported with the
Hello,
I have a similar problem with my custom board CPU mpc8548 (E500V2) with
4Gbytes of RAM
0x_ --0x7FFF_ 2Gbytes
0x1__ -- 0x1_7FFF_ 2Gbytes
I Enable the option PHYS_64BIT, and set in dts
memory {
#address-cells = <2>;
Hi all,
I am trying to use kexec with a crash dump kernel on a Maple board (Motorola
ATCA6101 to be precise). This board is running a two-CPU PPC970FX. I am
running a 2.6.27-10 kernel and have tried both older kexec-tools and the
newest ones. I have tried SMP and non-SMP kernels.
Using kexec -l t
The advantages of this:
- Don't encourage legacy support;
- Less external symbols, less code to compile-in for !MPC832x_RDB
platforms.
Signed-off-by: Anton Vorontsov
---
arch/powerpc/platforms/83xx/mpc832x_rdb.c | 107 +
arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_soc.c |
- Add gpio-controller node to manage QE GPIO Bank D;
- Add mmc-spi node;
- Modify board file so that it won't use legacy SPI support with the new
device trees.
Signed-off-by: Anton Vorontsov
---
arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc832x_rdb.dts | 24
arch/powerpc/platforms/8
This patch implements full support for OF SPI bindings. Now the driver
can manage its own chip selects without any help from the board files
and/or fsl_soc constructors.
The "legacy" code is well isolated and could be removed as time goes by.
Signed-off-by: Anton Vorontsov
---
drivers/spi/spi_m
The bindings describes a case where MMC/SD/SDIO slot directly connected
to a SPI bus. Such setups are widely used on embedded PowerPC boards.
The patch also adds the mmc-spi-slot entry to the OpenFirmware modalias
table.
Signed-off-by: Anton Vorontsov
---
.../powerpc/dts-bindings/mmc-spi-slot.t
The main purpose of this patch is to pass 'struct spi_device' to the
chip select handling routines. This is needed so that we could implement
full-fledged OpenFirmware support for this driver.
While at it, also:
- Replace two {de,activate}_cs routines by single cs_contol().
- Don't duplicate platf
On Jan 23, 2009, at 11:52 AM, Michele Pallaro wrote:
Hello,
I have a similar problem with my custom board CPU mpc8548 (E500V2)
with
4Gbytes of RAM
0x_ --0x7FFF_ 2Gbytes
0x1__ -- 0x1_7FFF_ 2Gbytes
I Enable the option PHYS_64BIT, and set in d
The patch fixes following sparse warnings:
CHECK spi_mpc83xx.c
spi_mpc83xx.c:145:1: warning: symbol 'mpc83xx_spi_rx_buf_u8' was not declared.
Should it be static?
spi_mpc83xx.c:146:1: warning: symbol 'mpc83xx_spi_rx_buf_u16' was not declared.
Should it be static?
spi_mpc83xx.c:147:1: warning
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 10:28:10PM -0600, Kumar Gala wrote:
> On Dec 5, 2008, at 2:09 PM, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The patch series are used to support SPI via the OF SPI subsystem
>> (driver/of/of_spi.c). Now the driver is able to manage its own
>> chip selects, and doesn't need any
Johns Daniel wrote:
Thank you for that piece of info, Scott!
May I expand the question one bit, and ask whether the user-mode
binaries compiled for the e300 will generally work for the e500 -- or,
vice versa? Is one choice safer than the other?
I know for sure that we take a big hit on float
Thank you for that piece of info, Scott!
May I expand the question one bit, and ask whether the user-mode binaries
compiled for the e300 will generally work for the e500 -- or, vice versa? Is
one choice safer than the other?
I know for sure that we take a big hit on floating-point ops, but are th
_PAGE_COHERENT is now always set in _PAGE_RAM resp. PAGE_KERNEL.
Thus it has to be masked out, if the BAT mapping should be non
cacheable or CPU_FTR_NEED_COHERENT is not set.
Signed-off-by: Gerhard Pircher
---
arch/powerpc/mm/ppc_mmu_32.c |6 +++---
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deleti
On Mon, 2009-01-19 at 13:51 -0700, Lee Nipper wrote:
> Is ftrace functional with latest kernel on powerpc (32-bit) ?
> It appears broken unless I'm missing something.
FWIW, 2.6.29-rc2 powerpc ftrace works with one patch
from Steven Rostedt added in:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/ros
Johns Daniel wrote:
Is it possible -- and prudent -- to use a single kernel binary image
for two similar boards, one based on an e300 core and the other on an
e500v2 core?
No, it is not possible. They use different MMUs, and the kernel does
not support choosing between them at runtime.
I w
Daniel Ng99 wrote:
MPC8247 Clock Configuration
- Bus-to-Core Mult 5x, VCO Div 2, 60x Bus Freq 20-60 , Core Freq 100-300
- dfbrg 1, corecnf 0x1b, busdf 7, cpmdf 1, plldf 0, pllmf 7, pcidf 7
- vco_out 52800, scc_clk 13200, brg_clk 3300
- cpu_clk 33000, cpm_clk 26400,
SLOF has a further node which could not be evaluate
by the current routine. The current routine returns
because the node hasn't the required reg property. As
fix this patch adds a check to determine the partition
child nodes. If the node is not an partition the number
of total partitions will be de
I missed a fix in this patch. I will resend it as v2.
cheers
ben
* Benjamin Krill | 2009-01-23 16:51:42 [+0100]:
>SLOF has a further node which could not be evaluate
>by the current routine. The current routine returns
>because the node hasn't the required reg property. As
>fix this patch adds
SLOF has a further node which could not be evaluate
by the current routine. The current routine returns
because the node hasn't the required reg property. As
fix this patch adds a check to determine the partition
child nodes.
Signed-off-by: Benjamin Krill
---
drivers/mtd/ofpart.c |5 +
1
Hi Andre,
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 01:43:47PM +0100, Andre Schwarz wrote:
>
> Sai Amruta wrote:
> >Hi All,
> >
> >I am using linux-2.6.26 on MPC8567 and microSD is connected through
> >SPI interface.
> >Is the existing mmc driver supports microSD?
> yes - it's working perfectly fine on my MPC8343
Wolfgang Wegner wrote:
Hi Andre,
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 01:43:47PM +0100, Andre Schwarz wrote:
Sai Amruta wrote:
Hi All,
I am using linux-2.6.26 on MPC8567 and microSD is connected through
SPI interface.
Is the existing mmc driver supports microSD?
yes - it's working perfec
Is it possible -- and prudent -- to use a single kernel binary image
for two similar boards, one based on an e300 core and the other on an
e500v2 core?
I was surprised to see that the e500v2-targeted toolchain did build
the kernel for the e300 board just fine. Don't know whether this will
always b
Wolfgang Wegner wrote:
Hi Andre,
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 01:43:47PM +0100, Andre Schwarz wrote:
Sai Amruta wrote:
Hi All,
I am using linux-2.6.26 on MPC8567 and microSD is connected through
SPI interface.
Is the existing mmc driver supports microSD?
yes - it's working perfec
Hi Ben,
Please pull the following changes for 2.6.29. Mostly defconfig
updates, but a few smaller fixes as well.
thx,
josh
The following changes since commit f3b8436ad9a8ad36b3c9fa1fe030c7f38e5d3d0b:
Linus Torvalds (1):
Merge branch 'for-linus' of git://git.kernel.org/.../roland/infin
Sai Amruta wrote:
Hi All,
I am using linux-2.6.26 on MPC8567 and microSD is connected through
SPI interface.
Is the existing mmc driver supports microSD?
yes - it's working perfectly fine on my MPC8343.
Even with SDHC cards ;-)
cheers,
Andre
--
--Amru
-
Julian Calaby wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:19, Anton Vorontsov
> wrote:
>> Should be Anatolij. ;-)
>
> Who is the first person on the list, I guess he's missed this or isn't
> reading his email.
I missed this, sorry.
> Before we commit to fixing this properly, is it really worth it? Is
* Phillip Lougher (phil.loug...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Eric Sesterhenn wrote:
>
> > I already tested squashfs. One issue is basically a problem with
> > the zlib-api for which i just posted a patch here
> > http://marc.info/?t=12321280733&r=1&w=2
> >
>
> Thanks
Hi
The device tree format has changed from linux-2.6.24. You need to port the
U-Boot to the latest version. Even I faced the same issue.
Regards
Ratheesh
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 12:45:22PM -0500, Haiying Wang wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-01-22 at
31 matches
Mail list logo
