On Tue, 13 Dec 2011, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-12-13 at 00:34 +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Dec 2011, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >
> > > Any chance you can test this patch ? I would not be surprised if it
> > > broke m68k since I had to do some of the changes i
On Tue, 2011-12-13 at 00:34 +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> > Any chance you can test this patch ? I would not be surprised if it
> > broke m68k since I had to do some of the changes in there "blind", so
> > let me know... with this, I can again
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> Any chance you can test this patch ? I would not be surprised if it
> broke m68k since I had to do some of the changes in there "blind", so
> let me know... with this, I can again suspend/resume properly on a Pismo
> while using the internal
On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 10:48 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> Any chance you can test this patch ? I would not be surprised if it
> broke m68k since I had to do some of the changes in there "blind",
> so let me know... with this, I can again suspend/resume properly on
> a Pismo while using the
Any chance you can test this patch ? I would not be surprised if it
broke m68k since I had to do some of the changes in there "blind",
so let me know... with this, I can again suspend/resume properly on
a Pismo while using the internal modem among other things.
>From c2dbe7117bb94c59a4b2a215fc87fe
On Thu, 2011-12-08 at 22:26 +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
>
> Maybe the modem wants a transition on DTR or similar, but it hasn't had
> time to initialise when that happens during SCC resumption.
>
> If so, calling pmz_shutdown() then pmz_startup() from the tail of
> pmz_resume() without delay shoul
Hi Finn,
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 12:26, Finn Thain wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Dec 2011, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>> On Thu, 2011-12-08 at 15:20 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>> > So basic operations seem to work, I've applied the patch to
>> > powerpc-next.
>
> Then I guess Geert should not pu
On Thu, 8 Dec 2011, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-12-08 at 15:20 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> > So basic operations seem to work, I've applied the patch to
> > powerpc-next.
Then I guess Geert should not push this for 3.3 -- or does it make no
difference?
> > Howev
On Thu, 2011-12-08 at 15:20 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> So basic operations seem to work, I've applied the patch to
> powerpc-next.
>
> However, the internal modem on my Pismo powerbook doesn't appear to
> survive suspend/resume. I'll dig into that and merge a fixup patch asap.
BTW. I
On Wed, 2011-12-07 at 14:49 +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> On most 68k Macs the SCC IRQ is an autovector interrupt and cannot be
> masked. This can be a problem when pmac_zilog starts up.
>
> For example, the serial debugging code in arch/m68k/kernel/head.S may be
> used beforehand. It disables the
On Wed, 2011-12-07 at 14:49 +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> On most 68k Macs the SCC IRQ is an autovector interrupt and cannot be
> masked. This can be a problem when pmac_zilog starts up.
Thanks. I'll test it on a powermac or two and will merge it via the
powerpc -next tree if it works out allright.
On most 68k Macs the SCC IRQ is an autovector interrupt and cannot be
masked. This can be a problem when pmac_zilog starts up.
For example, the serial debugging code in arch/m68k/kernel/head.S may be
used beforehand. It disables the SCC interrupts at the chip but doesn't
ack them. Then when a
12 matches
Mail list logo
