On Fri, 8 Jan 2010, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 17:39, Finn Thain
> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2 Jan 2010, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:04, Finn Thain
> >> wrote: BTW, there are a few other minor
> >> checkpatch issues with some of the other patch
On Sat, 2010-01-09 at 10:46 +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 11:45:28AM -0800, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-01-08 at 13:28 -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
> > > Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 20:35 -0600, Hunter Cobbs wrote:
> > > >> I think that is d
On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 11:45:28AM -0800, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-08 at 13:28 -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
> > Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 20:35 -0600, Hunter Cobbs wrote:
> > >> I think that is definitely a solution. It does centralize the testing
> > >> for
Most things mentioned are either obsolete (platform-support) or wrong (device
numbering, DCD spport) these days. The remaining rest is obvious.
Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang
Cc: Grant Likely
---
drivers/serial/mpc52xx_uart.c | 33 -
1 files changed, 0 insertions(
On Fri, 2010-01-08 at 13:28 -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
> Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 20:35 -0600, Hunter Cobbs wrote:
> >> I think that is definitely a solution. It does centralize the testing
> >> for this particular issue. The only thing question I have is if its
> >> really
Hollis Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 20:35 -0600, Hunter Cobbs wrote:
I think that is definitely a solution. It does centralize the testing
for this particular issue. The only thing question I have is if its
really better to have the upper level do the check. Shouldn't the
driver its
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 17:39, Finn Thain wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:04, Finn Thain wrote:
>> BTW, there are a few other minor checkpatch issues with some of the
>> other patches in the series, too.
>
> I ran checkpatch on all those patches
On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 20:35 -0600, Hunter Cobbs wrote:
> I think that is definitely a solution. It does centralize the testing
> for this particular issue. The only thing question I have is if its
> really better to have the upper level do the check. Shouldn't the
> driver itself handle the hard
Dario Presti wrote:
Thanks Scott,
I did not find where the custom map flash driver is in the kernel source,
where it is?
Grep your kernel tree for "MPC8323RDB Flash".
How can I say to the kernel to use device tree instead of custom map of
flash?
Turn off that mapping driver, and turn on CO
The newly added fixup for buggy dcbX insn's has
a bug that always trigger a kernel TLB walk so a user space
dcbX insn will cause a Kernel Machine Check if it hits DTLB error.
Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund
---
I found this problem in 2.4 and forward ported it to 2.6. I
cannot test it so I canno
Hi
I am using linux-2.6.26.8 kernel. In drivers/mtd/nand/Kconfig,
MTD_NAND_FSL_UPM depends on MTD_NAND && OF_GPIO && (PPC_83xx || PPC_85xx).
But I didnt find any way to select OF_GPIO option in "make menuconfig". So I
removed it from Kconfig file and got MTD_NAND_FSL_UPM in menuconfig. I
selected i
Scott Wood-2 wrote:
>
> Dario Presti wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I'm working on MPC8323_rdb board whit 1 new flash device S29GL512P
>> instead
>> of original flash devices.
>> the bootloader is u-boot 1.1.6 (I know is too old and I'm going to
>> upgrade
>> it) and the kernel is 2.6.20.
>
> 2.6.20 is al
From: Wolfgang Grandegger
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 09:58:58 +0100
> David Miller wrote:
>> From: Wolfgang Grandegger
>> Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 20:43:05 +0100
>>
>>> This patch series adds support for the MPC512x from Freescale to the
>>> mpc5xxx_can MSCAN driver. It has been tested on a MPC5121 a
David Miller wrote:
> From: Wolfgang Grandegger
> Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 20:43:05 +0100
>
>> This patch series adds support for the MPC512x from Freescale to the
>> mpc5xxx_can MSCAN driver. It has been tested on a MPC5121 and MPC5200B
>> board.
>
> So are these ready to go or should I wait for
From: Wolfgang Grandegger
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 20:43:05 +0100
> This patch series adds support for the MPC512x from Freescale to the
> mpc5xxx_can MSCAN driver. It has been tested on a MPC5121 and MPC5200B
> board.
So are these ready to go or should I wait for another round
of review? :-)
15 matches
Mail list logo
