On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 12:30:52 -0800
"Blanchard, Hollis" wrote:
> On 01/07/2011 08:44 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Blanchard, Hollis
> > wrote:
> >> On 01/07/2011 07:48 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> >>> Actually, for a while now the kernel has been moving towards userspa
On 01/07/2011 08:44 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Blanchard, Hollis
> wrote:
>> On 01/07/2011 07:48 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
>>> Actually, for a while now the kernel has been moving towards userspace
>>> being responsible for device identification. That's what udev is
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Blanchard, Hollis
wrote:
> On 01/07/2011 07:48 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
>> Actually, for a while now the kernel has been moving towards userspace
>> being responsible for device identification. That's what udev is for.
>> The kernel udev looks at the available inf
On 01/07/2011 07:48 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> Actually, for a while now the kernel has been moving towards userspace
> being responsible for device identification. That's what udev is for.
> The kernel udev looks at the available information when a device is
> registered/bound, and it creates us
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Blanchard, Hollis
wrote:
> On 01/05/2011 03:07 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 Jan 2011 14:49:40 -0800
>> "Blanchard, Hollis" wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/05/2011 02:09 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jan 2011 15:58:55 -0600
Meador Inge wrote:
> We n
On 01/05/2011 03:07 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2011 14:49:40 -0800
> "Blanchard, Hollis" wrote:
>
>> On 01/05/2011 02:09 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
>>> On Wed, 5 Jan 2011 15:58:55 -0600
>>> Meador Inge wrote:
>>>
We need some sort of mapping between a message register and a message
>>
On Wed, 5 Jan 2011 20:58:36 -0600
Meador Inge wrote:
> On 01/03/2011 02:22 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 23:58:09 -0600
> > Perhaps a something like this, with "doorbell" being a new standard
> > hw-independent service with its own binding:
> >
> > msg1: mpic-...@1400 {
> > co
On 01/03/2011 02:22 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 23:58:09 -0600
Perhaps a something like this, with "doorbell" being a new standard
hw-independent service with its own binding:
msg1: mpic-...@1400 {
compatible = "fsl,mpic-v3.0-msg";
reg =<0x1400 0x200>;
inter
On Wed, 5 Jan 2011 14:49:40 -0800
"Blanchard, Hollis" wrote:
> On 01/05/2011 02:09 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
> > On Wed, 5 Jan 2011 15:58:55 -0600
> > Meador Inge wrote:
> >
> >> We need some sort of mapping between a message register and a message
> >> register number so that the message registers
On 01/05/2011 02:09 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2011 15:58:55 -0600
> Meador Inge wrote:
>
>> We need some sort of mapping between a message register and a message
>> register number so that the message registers can be referenced through
>> some sort of API (e.g. 'mpic_msgr_read(0)').
On 12/23/2010 04:33 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
This argument has been rehashed many times, but it basically comes
down to compatible values should ideally be anchored to a real
implemented device, not to a family of devices, or to an unversioned
specification.
In practise, the implementation doesn'
On Wed, 5 Jan 2011 15:58:55 -0600
Meador Inge wrote:
> We need some sort of mapping between a message register and a message
> register number so that the message registers can be referenced through
> some sort of API (e.g. 'mpic_msgr_read(0)'). One way to do that would
> be by putting an ord
On 01/03/2011 01:51 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 15:33:25 -0700
Grant Likely wrote:
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 03:49:54PM -0600, Meador Inge wrote:
How do you
see this working in terms of processing the data? It seems like we
are going to have to be aware of N values instead of 1,
On 01/04/2011 06:13 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jan 2011 17:52:38 -0600
Meador Inge wrote:
Thanks for the feedback Scott.
On 01/03/2011 02:22 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 23:58:09 -0600
These nodes cannot go under the mpic node, because interrupt
controllers need #address-ce
On Tue, 4 Jan 2011 17:52:38 -0600
Meador Inge wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback Scott.
>
> On 01/03/2011 02:22 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 23:58:09 -0600
> > These nodes cannot go under the mpic node, because interrupt
> > controllers need #address-cells =<0>.
>
> Good point.
Thanks for the feedback Scott.
On 01/03/2011 02:22 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 23:58:09 -0600
These nodes cannot go under the mpic node, because interrupt
controllers need #address-cells =<0>.
Good point. Do they actually need it or is that just the way it
currently is? [1] ma
On 12/23/2010 01:49 PM, Meador Inge wrote:
>
> We can't just remove the IRQ of the _other_ OS from the 'interrupts'
> property in the message node because we need to know the IRQ in order
> to talk to the other OS. So, we use protected sources to tell the OS
> that an IRQ is not available for i
On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 23:58:09 -0600
Meador Inge wrote:
> NOTE: The 'interrupt-parent' is implicit since message register nodes
> are always children of interrupt controller nodes.
>
> ** Example:
>
> mpic: p...@4 {
> interrupt-controller;
> #address-
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 15:33:25 -0700
Grant Likely wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 03:49:54PM -0600, Meador Inge wrote:
> > How do you
> > see this working in terms of processing the data? It seems like we
> > are going to have to be aware of N values instead of 1, which seems
> > worse.
>
> This
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 03:49:54PM -0600, Meador Inge wrote:
> On 12/23/2010 12:56 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> >Hi Meador. Comments below.
> >
> >g.
>
> Thanks a lot for the feedback Grant.
>
> >You should probably list them here anyway to aid the reader.
>
> Will do.
>
> >What is the use case f
On 12/23/2010 12:56 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
Hi Meador. Comments below.
g.
Thanks a lot for the feedback Grant.
You should probably list them here anyway to aid the reader.
Will do.
What is the use case for the protected-sources property? Wouldn't the
irqs simply not be referenced by an
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 12:51:29AM -0600, Meador Inge wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I am currently doing some work on Linux PPC AMP systems (with Hollis,
> CC'd). We are using device trees to partition resources between the
> different OSes. To help with this effort, we would like to introduce
> some new
22 matches
Mail list logo
