On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 16:29 -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
>
> p.s. should the stable team be notified to fix 2.6.22 for
> Lombard-nvram-style machines?
Yes, definitely.
Cheers,
Ben.
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.o
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 13:42:33 +1000
Paul Mackerras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kim Phillips writes:
>
> > > In which circumstances are you trying to translate an address with no
> > > size cell ?
> >
> > for the enumerated PHYs. As the original commit comment states, I was
> > getting these mess
Kim Phillips writes:
> > In which circumstances are you trying to translate an address with no
> > size cell ?
>
> for the enumerated PHYs. As the original commit comment states, I was
> getting these messages:
>
> prom_parse: Bad cell count for /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL
> PRO
Kim Phillips writes:
> but yeah, size-cells should be allowed to be 0 (even address-cells) and
> it may be the case that the Lombard needs some fixup code.
So it turns out that the nvram is under the via-pmu node on the
Lombard. The via-pmu node has #size-cells == 0, which is correct
since thing
> for the enumerated PHYs. As the original commit comment states, I was
> getting these messages:
>
> prom_parse: Bad cell count for /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]
> prom_parse: Bad cell count for /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]
Well, I would
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:55:23 +1000
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > After hours of fun git bisecting, finally found the commit to revert
> > > to make my PowerBook G3 Lombard boot again. This does not result in
> > > the complains the reverted commit was revering to.
> >
> > After hours of fun git bisecting, finally found the commit to revert
> > to make my PowerBook G3 Lombard boot again. This does not result in
> > the complains the reverted commit was revering to.
>
> ..but it does on my MPC8360.
In which circumstances are you trying to translate an address w
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 23:28:45 +0200
Rutger Nijlunsing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 09:21:43PM +0200, Rutger Nijlunsing wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm trying to boot a new git kernel (2.6.22-g589f1e81), but it hangs
> > very early (the timestamp is still on 0.00).
>
> After
On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 09:21:43PM +0200, Rutger Nijlunsing wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to boot a new git kernel (2.6.22-g589f1e81), but it hangs
> very early (the timestamp is still on 0.00).
After hours bisecting, I found the one-liner which results in the
hang. Now it takes someone else to
