On Mon 2011-05-16 10:36:05, James Morris wrote:
> On Fri, 13 May 2011, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> How do you reason about the behavior of the system as a whole?
>
>
> > I argue that this is the LSM and audit subsystems designed right: in the
> > long
> > run it could allow everything that LSM does
On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 14:40 +0530, Rupjyoti Sarmah wrote:
> This patch adds MSI support for 440SPe, 460Ex, 460Sx and 405Ex.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rupjyoti Sarmah
> Signed-off-by: Tirumala R Marri
Ok so I sent the patch to Linus today. However I had to manually fix it
up for the generic changes to
Hi Linus !
This is a bit more than I expected to send you that late in the merge
window, but hopefully none of it should be problematic. A couple of
patches were simply delayed due to misunderstandings as to which tree
they should go through (4xx MSI and ftrace).
There's a generic patch to linux/
smp_release_cpus() waits for all cpus (including the bootcpu) due to an
off-by-one count on boot_cpu_count (which is all CPUs). This patch replaces
that with spinning_secondaries (which is all secondary CPUs).
Signed-off-by: Matt Evans
---
arch/powerpc/include/asm/smp.h |2 +-
arch/powerpc/
From: Dave Carroll
When using 64K pages with a separate cpio rootfs, U-Boot will align
the rootfs on a 4K page boundary. When the memory is reserved, and
subsequent early memblock_alloc is called, it will allocate memory
between the 64K page alignment and reserved memory. When the reserved
memory
From: Dave Carroll
When using 64K pages with a separate cpio rootfs, U-Boot will align
the rootfs on a 4K page boundary. When the memory is reserved, and
subsequent early memblock_alloc is called, it will allocate memory
between the 64K page alignment and reserved memory. When the reserved
memory
On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 01:34 -0500, Milton Miller wrote:
> The 8xx cpm_cascade was calling irq_eoi for the cascaded irq,
> but that will already have been called by the handle_fasteoi_irq
> that generic_handle_irq will call. The handler is set in
> arch/powerpc/sysdev/cpm1.c by the host map routine
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:06:27 +
Jain Priyanka-B32167 wrote:
> Hi Wolfram,
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wolfram Sang [mailto:w.s...@pengutronix.de]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 2:24 PM
> > To: Jain Priyanka-B32167
> > Cc: rtc-li...@googlegroups.com; linuxppc-dev@lists.o
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 01:34:18AM -0500, Milton Miller wrote:
> The radix-tree code uses call_rcu when freeing internal elements.
> We must protect against the elements being freed while we traverse
> the tree, even if the returned pointer will still be valid.
>
> While preparing a patch to expan
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 7:16 AM, Gabbasov, Andrew
wrote:
> Hello Matthew,
>
> You have made a patch
> "powerpc/fsl_booke: Add support to boot from core other than 0" some time
> ago, so you probably worked with booting the kernel on a cpu subset,
> particularly on the core other than 0.
>
> Could
Ben,
On 19.05.2011 [10:46:25 -0700], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 19.05.2011 [17:43:56 +1000], Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 15:25 -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > From: Milton Miller
> > >
> > > The hook dma_get_required_mask is supposed to return the mask re
On Wed, 25 May 2011, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 May 2011, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 10:59 -0500, Will Drewry wrote:
> > > > > include/linux/ftrace_event.h |4 +-
> > > > > include/linux/perf_event.
On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 17:01 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > We do _NOT_ make any decision based on the trace point so what's the
> > "pre-existing" active role in the syscall entry code?
>
> The seccomp code we are discussing in this thread.
That isn't pre-existing, that's proposed.
But face it,
* Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 24 May 2011, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 10:59 -0500, Will Drewry wrote:
> > > > include/linux/ftrace_event.h |4 +-
> > > > include/linux/perf_event.h| 10 +---
> > > > kernel/perf_event.c
Hello Matthew,
You have made a patch "powerpc/fsl_booke: Add support to boot from core other
than 0" some time ago, so you probably worked with booting the kernel on a cpu
subset, particularly on the core other than 0.
Could you please describe any details how you ran the kernel from u-boot o
> >> I am looking for the most-tested Linux distro for POWER7 architecture.
> >
> >IBM partnered with RedHat and Novell to make sure RHEL6 and SLES11 SP1 are
> >well tested with POWER7. Essential back-ports and bug are included in
>^ bug _fixes_
The patch migrates the use of sdhci_of_host and sdhci_of_data to
sdhci_pltfm_host and sdhci_pltfm_data, so that the former pair can
be eliminated.
Signed-off-by: Shawn Guo
Reviewed-by: Grant Likely
Reviewed-by: Wolfram Sang
Acked-by: Anton Vorontsov
---
drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-core.c | 3
The structure sdhci_pltfm_data is not necessarily to be in a public
header like include/linux/mmc/sdhci-pltfm.h, so the patch moves it
into drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-pltfm.h and eliminates the former one.
Signed-off-by: Shawn Guo
Reviewed-by: Grant Likely
Reviewed-by: Wolfram Sang
---
drivers/mmc
The patch turns the sdhci-of-core common stuff into helper functions
added into sdhci-pltfm.c, and makes sdhci-of device drviers self
registered using the same pair of .probe and .remove used by
sdhci-pltfm device drivers.
As a result, sdhci-of-core.c and sdhci-of.h can be eliminated with
those co
The patch turns the common stuff in sdhci-pltfm.c into functions, and
add device drivers their own .probe and .remove which in turn call
into the common functions, so that those sdhci-pltfm device drivers
register itself and keep all device specific things away from common
sdhci-pltfm file.
Signed
Here are what the patch set does.
* Remove .probe and .remove hooks from sdhci-pltfm.c and make it be
a pure common helper function providers.
* Add .probe and .remove hooks for sdhci pltfm drivers sdhci-cns3xxx,
sdhci-dove, sdhci-tegra, and sdhci-esdhc-imx to make them self
registered with
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:16:12PM -0700, efti wrote:
> >
> > I am trying to run tcl of my PPC460ex board. I have download the
> > tcl-8.3.3-sol26-sparc-local.gz file. But when I run it I get
> > the Syntax error.
>
> That tarball seems to indicate it's for both Solaris and Sparc.
> PPC460ex
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Stefan Roese wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 May 2011 23:43:08 Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>> On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 10:25 +0530, Prashant Bhole wrote:
>> > Fixed the problem by soft resetting the PCIe port in the function
>> > ppc460ex_pciex_port_init_hw().
>> > Is it a r
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:16:12PM -0700, efti wrote:
>
>Hi,
>
>I am trying to run tcl of my PPC460ex board. I have download the
>tcl-8.3.3-sol26-sparc-local.gz file. But when I run it I get the Syntax
>error.
That tarball seems to indicate it's for both Solaris and Sparc.
PPC460ex is neither of t
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:49:55AM +1000, Michael Neuling wrote:
>Gabriel,
>
>> I am looking for the most-tested Linux distro for POWER7 architecture.
>
>IBM partnered with RedHat and Novell to make sure RHEL6 and SLES11 SP1 are
>well tested with POWER7. Essential back-ports and bug are included i
On Tue, 24 May 2011, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 10:59 -0500, Will Drewry wrote:
> > > include/linux/ftrace_event.h |4 +-
> > > include/linux/perf_event.h| 10 +---
> > > kernel/perf_event.c | 49
> > >
On Tuesday 24 May 2011 23:43:08 Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 10:25 +0530, Prashant Bhole wrote:
> > Fixed the problem by soft resetting the PCIe port in the function
> > ppc460ex_pciex_port_init_hw().
> > Is it a right thing to do?
> Well, it's odd that you'd have to do
Hi Uwe,
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 08:46:19AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello Shawn,
>
> > > > +#ifndef CONFIG_MMC_SDHCI_ESDHC_IMX
> > > > +#define cpu_is_mx25() (0)
> > > > +#define cpu_is_mx35() (0)
> > > > +#define cpu_is_mx51() (0)
> > > > +#define cpu_is_imx() (0)
> > > > +#else
> >
On Mon, 23 May 2011 about 12:54:25 -, Dave Carroll wrote:
> When using 64K pages with a separate cpio rootfs, U-Boot will align
> the rootfs on a 4K page boundary. When the memory is reserved, and
> subsequent early memblock_alloc is called, it will allocate memory
> between the 64K page alignm
Hi,
On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 09:30 +0530, Dipen Dudhat wrote:
> + ret = nand_scan_tail(&priv->mtd);
> + if (ret)
> + goto err;
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MTD_PARTITIONS
We've just removed this macro, it should be merged upstream soon, but it
is in the mtd tree so far.
> + /* First
30 matches
Mail list logo
