On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 17:08 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 00:57 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> > Ben,
> >
> > Comments on the pmac case?
>
> Not yet :-) Give me a day. Was tracking a bug today.
A few days later...
Looks good. I had a quick peek at powermac users of th
On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 00:57 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> Ben,
>
> Comments on the pmac case?
Not yet :-) Give me a day. Was tracking a bug today.
Cheers,
Ben.
> - k
>
> On Apr 29, 2009, at 3:49 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> > Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala
> > ---
> >
> > Ben,
> >
> > My question is if
Ben,
Comments on the pmac case?
- k
On Apr 29, 2009, at 3:49 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala
---
Ben,
My question is if we think fake_pci_bus will always get a valid
hose().
The users of EARLY_PCI_OP are fsl/8xxx, 4xx, and pmac. I verified
that
fsl/8xxx & 4xx pass a v
Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala
---
Ben,
My question is if we think fake_pci_bus will always get a valid hose().
The users of EARLY_PCI_OP are fsl/8xxx, 4xx, and pmac. I verified that
fsl/8xxx & 4xx pass a valid hose. Do we think pmac does?
- k
arch/powerpc/include/asm/machdep.h|6 +-
arc
