RE: Problem in getting shared memory access on P1022RDK

2012-01-03 Thread Arshad, Farrukh
How can I verify if the memory mapped is coherent on both cores. My memory partitioning is given below CoreBase AddressSize Core 0 0x, 0x1000, --> CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START = bootm_low = Base Address Core 1 0x1000,

Re: [PATCH 2/2] mtd/nand: Fix IFC driver to support 2K NAND page

2012-01-03 Thread Prabhakar
On Wednesday 04 January 2012 01:19 AM, Scott Wood wrote: On 12/28/2011 10:59 PM, Prabhakar Kushwaha wrote: 1) OOB area should be updated irrespective of NAND page size. Earlier it was updated only for 512byte NAND page. 2) During OOB update fbcr should be equal to OOB size. Signed-off-by: Poon

Re: [PATCH 1/2] mtd/nand:Fix wrong address read in is_blank()

2012-01-03 Thread Prabhakar
On Wednesday 04 January 2012 01:54 AM, Scott Wood wrote: On 12/28/2011 10:59 PM, Prabhakar Kushwaha wrote: IFC NAND Machine calculates ECC on 512byte sector. Same is taken care in fsl_ifc_run_command() while ECC status verification. Here buffer number is calculated assuming 512byte sector and sa

RE: [PATCH] DTS: fix the bug and add the chip compatible for eSDHC

2012-01-03 Thread Huang Changming-R66093
> -Original Message- > From: Tabi Timur-B04825 > Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 4:30 AM > To: Huang Changming-R66093 > Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org; Huang Changming-R66093 > Subject: Re: [PATCH] DTS: fix the bug and add the chip compatible for > eSDHC > > On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12

RE: [PATCH] DTS: fix the bug and add the chip compatible for eSDHC

2012-01-03 Thread Huang Changming-R66093
> -Original Message- > From: Wood Scott-B07421 > Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 2:28 AM > To: Huang Changming-R66093 > Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org; Huang Changming-R66093 > Subject: Re: [PATCH] DTS: fix the bug and add the chip compatible for > eSDHC > > On 12/23/2011 12:10 AM, r6

Re: [PATCH v3] powerpc/85xx: add support to JOG feature using cpufreq interface

2012-01-03 Thread Scott Wood
On 12/27/2011 05:25 AM, Zhao Chenhui wrote: > * The driver doesn't support MPC8536 Rev 1.0 due to a JOG erratum. >Subsequent revisions of MPC8536 have corrected the erratum. Where do you check for this? > +#define POWMGTCSR_LOSSLESS_MASK 0x0040 > +#define POWMGTCSR_JOG_MASK 0x0020

Re: [PATCH 1/2] mtd/nand:Fix wrong address read in is_blank()

2012-01-03 Thread Scott Wood
On 12/28/2011 10:59 PM, Prabhakar Kushwaha wrote: > IFC NAND Machine calculates ECC on 512byte sector. Same is taken care in > fsl_ifc_run_command() while ECC status verification. Here buffer number is > calculated assuming 512byte sector and same is passed to is_blank. > However in is_blank() buff

Re: [PATCH 2/2] mtd/nand: Fix IFC driver to support 2K NAND page

2012-01-03 Thread Scott Wood
On 12/28/2011 10:59 PM, Prabhakar Kushwaha wrote: > 1) OOB area should be updated irrespective of NAND page size. Earlier it was > updated only for 512byte NAND page. > > 2) During OOB update fbcr should be equal to OOB size. > > Signed-off-by: Poonam Aggrwal > Signed-off-by: Prabhakar Kushwaha

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] Remove useless on_each_cpu return value

2012-01-03 Thread Gilad Ben-Yossef
2012/1/3 Michal Nazarewicz : > On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 15:19:04 +0100, Gilad Ben-Yossef > wrote: >> >> on_each_cpu() returns as its own return value the return value of >> smp_call_function(). smp_call_function() in turn returns a hard >> coded value of zero. >> >> Some callers to on_each_cpu() waste

[RFC PATCH 8/9] smp: refactor on_each_cpu to void returning func

2012-01-03 Thread Gilad Ben-Yossef
on_each_cpu returns the retunr value of smp_call_function which is hard coded to 0. Refactor on_each_cpu to a void function and the few callers that check the return value to save compares and branches. CC: Michal Nazarewicz CC: David Airlie CC: dri-de...@lists.freedesktop.org CC: Benjamin Herr

[RFC PATCH 5/9] ppc: avoid using on_each_cpu hard coded ret value

2012-01-03 Thread Gilad Ben-Yossef
on_each_cpu always returns a hard coded return code of zero. Removing all tests based on this return value saves run time cycles for compares and code bloat for branches. CC: Michal Nazarewicz CC: Benjamin Herrenschmidt CC: Paul Mackerras CC: Grant Likely CC: Rob Herring CC: linuxppc-dev@lis

[RFC PATCH 0/9] Remove useless on_each_cpu return value

2012-01-03 Thread Gilad Ben-Yossef
on_each_cpu() returns as its own return value the return value of smp_call_function(). smp_call_function() in turn returns a hard coded value of zero. Some callers to on_each_cpu() waste cycles and bloat code space by checking the return value to on_each_cpu(), probably for historical reasons.

Re: Problem in getting shared memory access on P1022RDK

2012-01-03 Thread Scott Wood
On 01/03/2012 03:42 AM, Arshad, Farrukh wrote: > Adding more to it, > > > > When I write from Core 1 on the shared memory region it is visible at > Core 0 and it can read what I have written from Core 1 but when I write > from Core 0 on this shared memory it is not visible on Core 1. Is the me

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] Remove useless on_each_cpu return value

2012-01-03 Thread Michal Nazarewicz
On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 15:19:04 +0100, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote: on_each_cpu() returns as its own return value the return value of smp_call_function(). smp_call_function() in turn returns a hard coded value of zero. Some callers to on_each_cpu() waste cycles and bloat code space by checking the ret

RE: Problem in getting shared memory access on P1022RDK

2012-01-03 Thread Arshad, Farrukh
Adding more to it, When I write from Core 1 on the shared memory region it is visible at Core 0 and it can read what I have written from Core 1 but when I write from Core 0 on this shared memory it is not visible on Core 1. Regards, Farrukh Arshad From: Arshad, Farrukh Sent: Tuesday, January 0