FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> powerpc initializes swiotlb before parsing the kernel boot options so
> swiotlb options (e.g. specifying the swiotlb buffer size) are ignored.
>
> Any time before freeing bootmem works for swiotlb so this patch moves
> powerpc's swiotlb initialization after parsing the ker
Hi Stephen,
Thanks for your suggestions.
I used git-send-email earlier and emails never appeared in the archive.
This time I sent through outlook & the message appeared in the archive.
Looks like outlook did that word wrap.
I am not sure why the emails from the git-send-email did not get
deliver
forgot to cc the list
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 00:13:00 -0500 (CDT)
From: Kumar Gala
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
Subject: [git pull] Please pull powerpc.git merge branch
The following changes since commit 30124d11097e371e42052144d8a3f4a78d26e09f:
Dave Klei
Hello,
We've tried both 2.6.33 and DENX-v2.6.33.1, and we haven't managed to
successfully use any form of DMA with the TQM5200 and a CompactFlash
card. We know the CF card supports DMA (or, at least, it says "UDMA"
right on the card, and various reports say Lexar Professional CF cards
do DMA), bu
Hi,
Just a couple of quick points ...
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:23:16 -0700 "Rupjyoti Sarmah" wrote:
>
> This patch enables the on-chip DWC SATA controller of the AppliedMicro
> processor 460EX.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rupjyoti Sarmah ,Mark Miesfeld
> ,
> Prodyut Hazarika
Please put one Signed-off-b
We shouldn't be always setting 'M' in the TLB entry since its reasonable
for somethings to be mapped non-coherent. The PTE should have 'M' set
properly.
Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala
---
arch/powerpc/kernel/head_fsl_booke.S |3 ---
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/
Felix Radensky wrote:
Hello, Kenji-san
Kenji Kaneshige wrote:
I misunderstood the problem.
My understanding was memory resource was not enabled even though Linux
set
the Memory Space bit in the command register. But it was not correct. The
bridge memory window was marked unused and Linux did
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:28:09 -0500
Becky Bruce wrote:
>
> On Mar 16, 2010, at 5:08 AM, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 06:58:41 +0100
> > Albert Herranz wrote:
> >
> >> FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:12:40 +0100
> >>> Albert Herranz wrote:
> >>>
> Th
powerpc initializes swiotlb before parsing the kernel boot options so
swiotlb options (e.g. specifying the swiotlb buffer size) are ignored.
Any time before freeing bootmem works for swiotlb so this patch moves
powerpc's swiotlb initialization after parsing the kernel boot
options, mem_init (as x8
OpenWRT has some fixes which adds the board descriptions for the OpenRB
(ppc504 based boards). Is there any reason why these should not be
merged into the mainline kernel? The fixes are all licences GPL2.
If not do you want the original authors to submit them, or shall I take the
OpenWRT specifi
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:39:03 +0100, Josh Boyer
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 12:23:19PM +, David Goodenough wrote:
OpenWRT has some fixes which adds the board descriptions for the OpenRB
(ppc504 based boards). Is there any reason why these should not be
ppc504? I've not heard of that
Hello, Kenji-san
Kenji Kaneshige wrote:
I misunderstood the problem.
My understanding was memory resource was not enabled even though Linux
set
the Memory Space bit in the command register. But it was not correct. The
bridge memory window was marked unused and Linux didn't try to set Memory
S
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 09:29 +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> Only the swap function cares about the ACCESSED bit in
> the pte. Do not waste cycles updateting ACCESSED when swap
> is not compiled into the kernel.
> ---
Your changeset comment is a bit misleading since the code isn't actually
updatin
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 09:29 +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MODULES
> + /* Only modules will cause ITLB Misses as we always
> +* pin the first 8MB of kernel memory */
> andi. r11, r10, 0x0800/* Address >= 0x8000 */
> beq 3f
> l
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 02:22:13PM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 10:04:54PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 04:46:15PM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
>
> > > 14.99%perf [kernel.kallsyms] [k] ._raw_spin_lock
> > >
On Mar 16, 2010, at 5:08 AM, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 06:58:41 +0100
Albert Herranz wrote:
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:12:40 +0100
Albert Herranz wrote:
The current SWIOTLB code uses a default of 64MB for the IO TLB
area.
This size can be influenced u
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010, Rupjyoti Sarmah wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: Jiri Kosina [mailto:jkos...@suse.cz]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 9:18 PM
> To: Rupjyoti Sarmah
> Cc: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: Failure with the 2.6.34-rc1 kernel
>
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2010, Rupjyo
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 12:23:19PM +, David Goodenough wrote:
>OpenWRT has some fixes which adds the board descriptions for the OpenRB
>(ppc504 based boards). Is there any reason why these should not be
ppc504? I've not heard of that one. Is that a typo for 405?
>merged into the mainline k
OpenWRT has some fixes which adds the board descriptions for the OpenRB
(ppc504 based boards). Is there any reason why these should not be
merged into the mainline kernel? The fixes are all licences GPL2.
If not do you want the original authors to submit them, or shall I take the
OpenWRT specifi
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > I have fixed some typos.
>
> Acked-by: Randy Dunlap
>
> Jiri, can you merge these, please, unless someone objects (?).
Yes, I will take it, thanks. A couple comments though:
- [important!] Thomas, it's not necessary to CC zillions of people on such
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 06:58:41 +0100
Albert Herranz wrote:
> FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:12:40 +0100
> > Albert Herranz wrote:
> >
> >> The current SWIOTLB code uses a default of 64MB for the IO TLB area.
> >> This size can be influenced using a kernel command line parameter
Ian Campbell writes:
> On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 00:29 +, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> [...]
>> > after that xen could use
>> > irq_to_desc_alloc_node_f(irq, node, xen_init_chip_data);
>> >
>> > as need...
>> >
>> > at last we don't need to call x86_init_chip_data everywhere.
>
> This was one of
On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 00:29 +, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> [...]
> > after that xen could use
> > irq_to_desc_alloc_node_f(irq, node, xen_init_chip_data);
> >
> > as need...
> >
> > at last we don't need to call x86_init_chip_data everywhere.
This was one of the things I was considering. It se
Hello, Kenji-san
Kenji Kaneshige wrote:
I misunderstood the problem.
My understanding was memory resource was not enabled even though Linux
set
the Memory Space bit in the command register. But it was not correct. The
bridge memory window was marked unused and Linux didn't try to set Memory
S
24 matches
Mail list logo
