On Sat, 2009-10-03 at 16:51 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Andreas Schwab writes:
>
> > Andreas Schwab writes:
> >
> >> Anton Blanchard writes:
> >>
> >>> On 64bit applications the VDSO is the only thing in segment 0. Since the
> >>> VDSO
> >>> is position independent we can remove the hint an
Am 03.10.09 16:40 schrieb(en) Wolfram Sang:
Sorry, I hardly know anything about the microcode. From what I know,
it shouldn't be much fun due to various bugs in the Bestcomm engine.
Ummm. That's not encouraging! :-/
Hey! No need for insults! ;)
Sorry, that wasn't my intention, but it's a
Andreas Schwab writes:
> Andreas Schwab writes:
>
>> Anton Blanchard writes:
>>
>>> On 64bit applications the VDSO is the only thing in segment 0. Since the
>>> VDSO
>>> is position independent we can remove the hint and let get_unmapped_area
>>> pick
>>> an area.
>>
>> This breaks gdb. The
> doesn't give any support, so it's all trial and error and error and
> error... If you have any idea, pointers would be appreciated!
Sorry, I hardly know anything about the microcode. From what I know, it
shouldn't be much fun due to various bugs in the Bestcomm engine.
> I don't think so -
Andreas Schwab writes:
> Anton Blanchard writes:
>
>> On 64bit applications the VDSO is the only thing in segment 0. Since the VDSO
>> is position independent we can remove the hint and let get_unmapped_area pick
>> an area.
>
> This breaks gdb. The section table in the VDSO image when mapped i
Hi Wolfram:
Am 03.10.09 11:44 schrieb(en) Wolfram Sang:
you wrote your own microcode? :)
I modified the bcom_gen_bd_rx_task for a LPB peripheral as to perform
Endianess swapping during the transfer (works meanwhile :-).
Modifying the standard kernel code for testing seemed to be the wron
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote on 03/10/2009 12:57:28:
> On Sat, 2009-10-03 at 11:24 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> >
> > So yes, there is a missing _tlbil_va() missing for 8xx somewhere
> > but there is something more too.
> > Maybe your new filter functions and my
> > powerpc, 8xx: DTLB Erro
On Sat, 2009-10-03 at 11:25 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Due to missing segment assignments the .text section was put in the NOTES
> segment (and marked as NOTE section), and the .got was put in the DYNAMIC
> segment.
Ouch, good catch ! Thanks.
Cheers,
Ben.
> Signed-off-by: Andreas Schwab
> -
> Making the target of foo volatile properly rechecks the condition on
> each iteration.
>
> OTOH my PPC box runs fine, so I'm probably missing something obvious.
Probably because the IO accessors do -both- volatile casts and
add the barriers :-)
Ben.
On Sat, 2009-10-03 at 11:24 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>
> So yes, there is a missing _tlbil_va() missing for 8xx somewhere
> but there is something more too.
> Maybe your new filter functions and my
> powerpc, 8xx: DTLB Error must check for more errors.
> will do the trick?
Well, if we can'
Hi,
> > >> 'volatile' just doesn't really do what you think it should do. The
> > >> PowerPC architecture is too complicated w.r.t. ordering of reads and
> > >> writes. In other words, you can't trust it.
It's not sufficient on PowerPC.
It might be necessary, depending on the compiler's mood f
Hi Albrecht,
you wrote your own microcode? :)
approach looks ok to me in general, but this patch is line-wrapped.
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 09:55:38PM +0200, Albrecht Dreß wrote:
> This patch adds a method for defining different microcodes than the
> pe-defined ones for the MPC52xx processor's Be
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote on 03/10/2009 10:31:18:
>
> On Sat, 2009-10-03 at 10:05 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > Cannot shake the feeling that it this snip of code that causes it
> > lwz r11, 0(r10) /* Get the level 1 entry */
> > rlwinm. r10, r11,0,0,19 /* Extract p
Due to missing segment assignments the .text section was put in the NOTES
segment (and marked as NOTE section), and the .got was put in the DYNAMIC
segment.
Signed-off-by: Andreas Schwab
---
arch/powerpc/kernel/vdso32/vdso32.lds.S |4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
di
On Sat, 2009-10-03 at 10:05 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> Cannot shake the feeling that it this snip of code that causes it
> lwz r11, 0(r10) /* Get the level 1 entry */
> rlwinm. r10, r11,0,0,19 /* Extract page descriptor page
> address */
> beq 2f
Scott Wood wrote on 02/10/2009 23:49:49:
>
> On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 08:35:59AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > >From what I can see, the TLB miss code will check _PAGE_PRESENT, and
> > when not set, it will -still- insert something into the TLB (unlike
> > all other CPU types that go str
16 matches
Mail list logo
